[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130131144627.GL98867@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 09:46:27 -0500
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Mike Lykov <combr@...dex.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
kirill@...temov.name
Subject: Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma
initramfs on slow cpu
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 03:21:02PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
>
> 30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет:
> > I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try
> > 'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?
>
> Ok. "kernel.watchdog_thresh=30" is a sysctl presentation, i mixed
> them wrongly.
>
> Your patch about cmd support for 'watchdog_thresh=30' working. I
> tested it: parameter applies and lzma -9 initramfs loading
> successfully.
> If I delete parameter from cmdline - same kernel not boot.
Good to know.
>
> > I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
> > touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things
> > run a little slower. Compiled tested only.
>
> In my case (3.2.32) it cannot compile:
>
> LD arch/x86/boot/compressed/vmlinux
> arch/x86/boot/compressed/misc.o: In function `decompress_kernel':
> misc.c:(.text+0x993): undefined reference to `touch_softlockup_watchdog'
I think Andrew's suggestion is a better approach which is add the
touch_softlockup_watchdog. So I would have to see you .config file to
understand the compile warning.
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