[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170620150359.0fbb417aed72c84ac6ad8498@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:03:59 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dzickus@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org,
babu.moger@...cle.com, atomlin@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, eranian@...gle.com, acme@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, Kan Liang <Kan.liang@...el.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups
On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:33:09 -0700 kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <Kan.liang@...el.com>
>
> Some users reported spurious NMI watchdog timeouts.
>
> We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough
> that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft watchdog timer that
> updates the interrupt tick the NMI watchdog relies on.
>
> This problem was originally added by commit 58687acba592
> ("lockup_detector: Combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup detector").
> Previously the NMI watchdog would always check jiffies, which were
> ticking fast enough. But now the backing is quite slow so the expire
> time becomes more sensitive.
>
> For mainline the right fix is to switch the NMI watchdog to reference
> cycles, which tick always at the same rate independent of turbo mode.
> But this is requires some complicated changes in perf, which are too
> difficult to backport. Since we need a stable fix too just increase the
> NMI watchdog rate here to avoid the spurious timeouts. This is not an
> ideal fix because a 3x as large Turbo range could still fail, but for
> now that's not likely.
>
> ...
>
> The right fix for mainline can be found here.
> perf/x86/intel: enable CPU ref_cycles for GP counter
> perf/x86/intel, watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to ref cycles on x86
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9779087/
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9779089/
Presumably the "right fix" will later be altered to revert this
one-line workaround?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists