[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1710031451590.2281@nanos>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:20:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 22/29] lockup_detector: Make watchdog_nmi_reconfigure()
two stage
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > Hmm, I tried that patch, it makes the warning go away. But then I
> > triggered a deliberate hard lockup and got nothing.
> >
> > Then I went back to the existing code (in linux-next), and I still get
> > no warning from a deliberate hard lockup.
> >
> > So seems there may be some more gremlins. Will test more in the morning.
>
> Hrm. That's weird. I'll have a look and send a proper patch series on top
> of next.
The major difference is that the reworked code utilizes
watchdog_nmi_reconfigure() for both init and the sysctl updates, but I
can't for my life figure out why that doesn't work.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists