[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080429123522.GK31271@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:35:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
* Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:55:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > good idea - but why dont you set softlockup_thresh to 0, which is the
> > "off" switch already? (and that way it can be turned back on later as
> > well, by the sysadmin.)
> >
>
> I'm getting unaligned access errors trying to set it to anything, so
> it's not working for me currently (2.6.25):
>
> It's tripping up on the address of 'one', which is an int that is not
> properly aligned for the unsigned long comparison in
> proc_doulongvec_minmax on my 64 bit machine. Also, the value '0' is
> invalid for softlockup_thresh, correct?
>
> I temporarily got around these issues with the following hack.
ah, sorry. But ... perhaps using threshold -1 would be the most
intuitive setting? (for 'infinite timeout' ==> softlockup detector
turned off) That way it all becomes configurable as part of the
threshold? No strong opinion though.
Ingo
--
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