All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:52:52 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080428185252.GC1167@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080428165544.GE18210@elte.hu>

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:55:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> good idea - but why dont you set softlockup_thresh to 0, which is the 
> "off" switch already? (and that way it can be turned back on later as 
> well, by the sysadmin.)
> 

I'm getting unaligned access errors trying to set it to anything, so it's not working for me currently (2.6.25):

It's tripping up on the address of 'one', which is an int that is not properly aligned for the unsigned long comparison in proc_doulongvec_minmax on my 64 bit machine.  Also, the value '0' is invalid for softlockup_thresh, correct?

I temporarily got around these issues with the following hack.

Index: linux/kernel/sysctl.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/sysctl.c  2008-04-16 21:49:44.000000000 -0500
+++ linux/kernel/sysctl.c       2008-04-28 13:37:43.000561710 -0500
@@ -748,9 +748,9 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
                .data           = &softlockup_thresh,
                .maxlen         = sizeof(unsigned long),
                .mode           = 0644,
-               .proc_handler   = &proc_doulongvec_minmax,
+               .proc_handler   = &proc_dointvec_minmax,
                .strategy       = &sysctl_intvec,
-               .extra1         = &one,
+               .extra1         = &zero,
                .extra2         = &sixty,



Also, I'm not convinced that changing this to 0 does indeed switch off softlockup detection (but I could be missing something):

void softlockup_tick(void)
{
..
..
        /* Warn about unreasonable delays: */
        if (now <= (touch_timestamp + softlockup_thresh))
                return;
        
        per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu) = touch_timestamp;
   
        spin_lock(&print_lock);
        printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %lus! [%s:%d]\n",
                        this_cpu, now - touch_timestamp,
                        current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));


Dimitri

  reply	other threads:[~2008-04-28 18:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-23 20:16 [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime Dimitri Sivanich
2008-04-23 21:55 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-04-23 22:24   ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-04-28 16:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-28 18:52   ` Dimitri Sivanich [this message]
2008-04-29 12:35     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-04-29 12:44       ` Dimitri Sivanich
2008-04-29 14:13         ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080428185252.GC1167@sgi.com \
    --to=sivanich@sgi.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.