Re: [PATCH V2] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > Hmm, all this work for a temp fix.  Kan, how much longer until the real fix
> > > of having perf count the right cycles?
> > 
> > Quite a while. The approach is wilfully breaking the user space ABI, which
> > is not going to happen.
> > 
> > And there is a simpler solution as well, as I said here:
> > 
> >     http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1706221730520.1885@nanos
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> So, you are saying instead of slowing down the perf counter, speed up the
> hrtimer to sample more frequently like so:
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 03e0b69..8ff49de 100644
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ static void set_sample_period(void)
>  	 * and hard thresholds) to increment before the
>  	 * hardlockup detector generates a warning
>  	 */
> -	sample_period = get_softlockup_thresh() * ((u64)NSEC_PER_SEC / 5);
> +	sample_period = get_softlockup_thresh() * ((u64)NSEC_PER_SEC / 10);
>  }
> 
>  /* Commands for resetting the watchdog */
> 
> 
> That is another way of doing it.  It just hits all the arches.  It does seem
> cleaner as the watchdog_thresh value still retains it correct meaning.  Are
> the laptop folks going to yell at me some more for waking their systems up
> more? :-)

Yes, that's bound to happen. You might make them less angry if you wake the
softlockup thread only on every second hrtimer expiry, i.e. keeping the
current wakeup rate.  But I can't promise that this will significantly
lower their wrath. :)

Thanks,

	tglx