linux-kernel - [patch 0/2] softlockup watchdog improvements

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:38:16 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: [patch 0/2] softlockup watchdog improvements

Here's couple of patches to improve the softlockup watchdog.

The first changes the softlockup timer from using jiffies to sched_clock()
as a timebase.  Xen and VMI implement sched_clock() as counting unstolen
time, so time stolen by the hypervisor won't cause the watchdog to bite.

The second adds per-cpu enable flags for the watchdog timer.  This allows
the timer to be disabled when the CPU goes into a (potentially unbounded)
tickless sleep.

I know this conflicts with
fix-bogus-softlockup-warning-with-sysrq-t.patch in -mm2.  I think that
patch incorrectly changes the behaviour of the softlockup watchdog,
and a better solution is to temporarily disable the watchdog while
doing something known to be cpu-consuming, like a long sysreq output.

	J
-- 

-
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/