[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170627234822.GL23705@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 16:48:22 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"babu.moger@...cle.com" <babu.moger@...cle.com>,
"atomlin@...hat.com" <atomlin@...hat.com>,
"prarit@...hat.com" <prarit@...hat.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"acme@...hat.com" <acme@...hat.com>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups
> I haven't heard back any test result yet.
>
> The above patch looks good to me.
This needs performance testing. It may slow down performance or latency sensitive workloads.
> Which workaround do you prefer, the above one or the one checking timestamp?
I prefer the earlier patch, it has far less risk of performance issues.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists