[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9cad0f11-97f1-42f2-bc26-210701350690@paulmck-laptop>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 08:39:30 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ra.org>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Scott Hamilton <scott.hamilton@...den.com>
Subject: Re: clocksource: Reduce watchdog readout delay limit to prevent
false positives
On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 09:37:40AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19 2025 at 16:18, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 11:13:05AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > My concern is that the patch below would force needless cs_watchdog_read()
> >> > retries.
> >>
> >> That's not the end of the world and way better than degrading the
> >> watchdog further.
> >
> > But what you proposed is just a further tweak of the heuristics you so
> > energetically decry above.
>
> I fully agree that it is a bandaid fix, but it makes the machinery
> consistent and correct. It prevents false positives, which are
> inevitable in the current design. No?
It might also be necessary to compensate by tweaking up the number of
retries by adjusting clocksource_get_max_watchdog_retry().
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists