[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4718a252-9515-626e-a69f-565f1c2bc589@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:34:23 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: kan.liang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dzickus@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
babu.moger@...cle.com, atomlin@...hat.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, eranian@...gle.com, acme@...hat.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups
On 06/20/2017 05:33 PM, 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.
>
Hmm ... odd that I haven't seen this. We're running a pretty wide
variety of systems here. Do you have a reproducer? I'd like to see
this occur on production HW.
P.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists