[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090130150125.GF31009@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:01:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: x86's nmi_hz wrt. oprofile's nmi_timer_int.c
* David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> While working on an NMI watchdog implementation on sparc64 I noticed
> what seems to be a peculiar behavior of the NMI timer int oprofile
> support on x86.
>
> When the NMI watchdog tests itself at boot timer we start with nmi_hz
> equal to HZ.
>
> After the NMI watchdog self-test passes, nmi_hz is reduced down to '1'.
>
> The NMI timer int oprofile support simply uses DIE_NMI notifiers for
> it's implementation. But I don't see anything in the code of
> arch/x86/oprofile/nmi_timer_int.c nor the NMI watchdog infrastructure
> which will re-adjust nmi_hz back to HZ or something similar.
>
> Am I missing something?
Reducing it to 1 HZ was kind of a performance hack: running NMIs at HZ
needlessly interrupts the CPU HZ times a second. It's more than enough to
have 1 nmi-watchdog tick per second to notice deadlocks that take longer
than 5 seconds.
Can you see a problem with that approach, or was this just a question
about why it's reduced to 1 Hz?
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