Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1671683
| From | Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups |
| Date | 2017-06-21 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tUOb8-6Jf-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tUz2p-5x0-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tUzvt-5W2-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <tUNf4-682-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:40:28PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > > > > > > The right fix for mainline can be found here. > > > perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter perf/x86/intel, > > > watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to ref cycles on x86 > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9779087/ > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9779089/ > > > > Presumably the "right fix" will later be altered to revert this one-line > > workaround? > > The "right fix" itself will not touch the watchdog rate. I will modify the > changelog to notify the people who want to do the backport. > > As my understanding, it's not harmful even if we don't revert the > workaround. It can still detect the hardlockup, only takes > a tiny bit longer. It depends on you perspective of harmful. :-) There are folks that would like that sampling rate to be more accurate, so they can detect problems soon than later. You just took an input of 'watchdog_thresh' and blindly multiplied it by 3, which can confuse an end user who thought they setup a 5 second threshold but instead it turned into a 15 second one. :-( Cheers, Don
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups kan.liang@intel.com - 2017-06-20 23:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-06-21 00:10 +0200
RE: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 14:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 15:50 +0200
RE: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 16:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com> - 2017-06-21 01:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 02:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Marc Herbert <Marc.Herbert@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 15:50 +0200
RE: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2017-06-21 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-28 13:50 +0200
RE: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2017-06-28 15:30 +0200
RE: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com> - 2017-06-28 16:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-06-28 16:40 +0200
csiph-web