[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061018172139.3a77a927.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:21:39 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc2-mm1
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:07:59 -0700
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> While the soft lock up messages are getting printed..
> (waited for 5 min for these messages)..
>
> # while :; do grep NMI /proc/interrupts; sleep 30; done
> NMI: 265 73 41 47
> NMI: 265 81 62 47
> NMI: 265 81 71 69
> NMI: 265 81 93 77
> NMI: 265 81 101 99
> NMI: 288 82 101 107
> NMI: 296 82 131 129
> NMI: 296 82 153 137
> NMI: 296 82 161 160
> NMI: 296 105 161 167
> NMI: 296 112 184 167
>
> Looking at the messages, I don't think trace all cpus
> is working ..
nfi what's going on there. On my Conroe machine each CPU's NMI count goes
up by what apepars to be one-per-second when the CPUs are flat out busy,
but the count increases by random small amounts (like yours) when the
machine is idle.
Did you try setting nmi_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