| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:35:49 -0400 From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@...omium.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Make sure the watchdog thread gets CPU on loaded system On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:00:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 13:42 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So unless there's concensus to remove everything but the hard > > lockup detection facilities, lets solve the technical problem at > > hand, ok? > > Well, at least make it possible to disable the silly soft thing. > > And I really wouldn't know how the soft thing could possible help, > except when not actually having a NMI watchdog. What case does it > trigger where the NMI one doesn't? I think softlockup really boils down to a pre-emption disabled detector much like how the hardlockup really is a interrupts disabled detector. The amount of code preventing the scheduler from running is most likely a lot lower than the code the prevents interrrupts from happening. Cheers, Don -- 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