[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170628190008.3ftqq75evhn2hozp@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:00:08 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.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
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:48:22PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 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.
More motivation to work through the issues with the proposed real fix? :-)
>
> > 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.
But now you are slowing down the nmi_watchdog so much that the
watchdog_thresh hold becomes meaningless, no? (granted the turbo-mode blows
it out of the water too) So now folks who depend on the 10/5/1/whatever second
reliability lose that. I think that might be unfair too.
The hrtimer increase maintains that and just adds a few more
interrupts/second.
Cheers,
Don
Powered by blists - more mailing lists