[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061019091816.e04ae8e7.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:18:16 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc2-mm1
On 19 Oct 2006 14:32:11 +0200
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:01:05 -0700
> > Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is the NMI watchdog ticking over?
> > >
> > > I think so.
> > >
> > > # dmesg | grep NMI
> > > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x00] high edge lint[0x1])
> > > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] high edge lint[0x1])
> > > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x02] high edge lint[0x1])
> > > ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x03] high edge lint[0x1])
> > > testing NMI watchdog ... OK.
> >
> >
> > What does it say in /proc/interrupts?
> >
> > The x86_64 nmi watchdog handling looks rather complex.
> >
> > <checks a couple of x86-64 machines>
> >
> > The /proc/interrutps NMI count seems to be going up by about
> > one-per-minute. How odd. Maybe you just need to wait longer.
>
> That's consistent with a idle machine. The perfctr used by the nmi
> watchdog only increases when the CPU isn't halted and when it's idle
> it's not doing very much. When something actually loops it should
> increase much faster though.
>
ok..
What is the reason for not using an apic/lapic NMI source for the watchdog?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists