Re: regression from softlockup fix

[David Miller]

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:43:38 +0100

> * David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > I suspect that what is happening is that the NOHZ period is longer 
> > than the softlockup timeout (10 seconds) and we get an interrupt 
> > before the watchdog thread gets onto the cpu.
> 
> indeed! Does the patch below do the trick?

I'm sure it works but it partly defeats the purpose of NOHZ.

I really like it that my cpus sleep completely for hours at a time
when not in use. :)

Anyways, I'll give your patch a test.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/