[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150121105251.GA3040@hawk.usersys.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 11:52:51 +0100
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
Cc: uobergfe@...hat.com, dzickus@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: Confusing behaviour with /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 02:39:42PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 09:34:20AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > > commit 9919e39a1738 ("kvm: ensure hard lockup detection is disabled
> > > by default") provided a way for the kernel to disable the hard
> > > lockup detector at runtime.
> > >
> > > I'm using it on ppc64 but notice some weird behaviour with the
> > > nmi_watchdog procfs variable. At boot, that the hard lockup
> > > detector appears to be enabled even when we disable it via
> > > watchdog_enable_hardlockup_detector(false):
> > >
> > > # cat /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
> > > 1
> > >
> > > I have to echo 0 to it then echo 1 again to enable it.
> > >
> > > Anton
> >
> > Hi Anton,
> >
> > Yes, the nmi watchdog proc variables are currently a bit
> > confusing. Uli has posted a series to clear all that up
> > though. Please see
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/17/340
>
> Any progress on this? I'm rebasing our hardware NMI patch for ppc64 and
> notice the strange behaviour is still in mainline.
>
Hi Anton,
I'm not aware of anything blocking this series, but maybe I missed
something. Andrew Morton and Don Zickus are the ones to ask. Andrew?
Don?
Thanks,
drew
--
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