[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9320cd00-88f4-49c5-aaa5-4bb4a80c8813@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 20:12:04 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: kan.liang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups
On 06/20/2017 07:00 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:34:23PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> It only happens on a few specific CPU SKUs with a very wide Turbo range.
Which ones?
> Reproducer is typically some stress workload that turbos very high.
So stress the single Turbo Max core? Or any core?
P.
>
> -Andi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists