[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080429124426.GA20775@sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:44:26 -0500
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
Having the ability to switch it off dynamically would be nice to have, but
will need a little work yet. Any solution should also minimize the amount
of time spent in softlockup_tick.
Either '0' or '-1' seems OK to me, but if '-1' turns it off, do we allow
a value of '0'?.
--
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