linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Change softlockup trigger limit using a kernel parameter

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

Message-ID: <20070719183129.GB20298@localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:31:29 -0700
From:	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Change softlockup trigger limit using a kernel parameter

On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:11:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> > +softlockup_thresh:
>> > +
>> > +This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance
>> > +threshold. The default threshold is 10s.  If a cpu is locked up
>> > +for 10s, the kernel complains.  Valid values are 1-10s.
>> > +
>> 
>> neato.
>
>please make sure this is applied after the softlockup watchdog patches i 
>already did. (in particular the cleanup patch, which this could interact 
>with)
>
>also, i think the valid threshold should be between 1 and 60 seconds i 
>think.

60 seconds!  Is that not a pretty high threshold?  The reason for lowering
the tolerance threshold from 10s is to catch bugs early in lab environments,
but why do we need to raise the tolerance thresh beyond 10s?

Thanks,
Kiran
-
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/