[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130613131057.GA15997@somewhere>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:10:59 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Li Zhong <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anish Singh <anish198519851985@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] watchdog: Boot-disable by default on full dynticks
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 01:03:16PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:02:36PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > When the watchdog runs, it prevents the full dynticks
> > CPUs from stopping their tick because the hard lockup
> > detector uses perf events internally, which in turn
> > rely on the periodic tick.
> >
> > Since this is a rather confusing behaviour that is not
> > easy to track down and identify for those who want to
> > test CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL, let's default disable the
> > watchdog on boot time when full dynticks is enabled.
> >
> > The user can still enable it later on runtime using
> > proc or sysctl.
>
> I thought we had a conversation awhile ago, where we agreed this was going
> to be fixed for 3.11? Didn't Peter find the patch and apply it to his
> tree? I am confused why this is still needed?
We agreed on the patch but it hasn't been applied yet. I'm trying to get
a sane series of nohz patches before sending to Ingo.
Thanks.
--
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