From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
David Bahi <dbahi@novell.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Gregory Haskins <GHaskins@novell.com>
Subject: Re: nmi_watchdog fix for x86_64 to be more like i386
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:41:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710012341.53169.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.9999.0710012207270.20478@localhost.localdomain>
> IRQ_NOBALANCING is not preventing cpu unplug. It moves the affinity to the
> next CPU, but the check in NMI watchdog for CPU == 0 would not longer
> work.
That cannot happen right now because cpu_disable() on both i386/x86-64
reject CPU #0. So just setting IRQ_NOBALANCING is sufficient and both
do that already. I was wrong earlier in being concerned about this.
> int tick_do_broadcast(cpumask_t mask)
> @@ -137,6 +147,7 @@ int tick_do_broadcast(cpumask_t mask)
> cpu_clear(cpu, mask);
> td = &per_cpu(tick_cpu_device, cpu);
> td->evtdev->event_handler(td->evtdev);
> + tick_broadcast_account(cpu);
That would not handle the case with a single CPU running only
irq 0 but not broadcasting I think.
I believe ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches/fix-watchdog
is the correct fix
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-01 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-26 18:03 nmi_watchdog fix for x86_64 to be more like i386 David Bahi
2007-10-01 17:36 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-01 18:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-01 19:16 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-01 19:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-01 19:56 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-01 20:10 ` Dave Jones
2007-10-01 20:11 ` Paul E. McKenney
2007-10-01 21:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-01 21:41 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-10-01 21:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-01 22:07 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-01 22:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-01 22:52 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-02 4:56 ` Mika Penttilä
2007-10-02 5:00 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-02 5:51 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-02 6:18 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-10-05 4:37 ` Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2007-10-05 20:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-10-05 16:01 David Bahi
2007-10-05 16:03 ` Andi Kleen
2007-10-05 17:38 ` Peter W. Morreale
2007-10-05 18:00 ` Andi Kleen
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=200710012341.53169.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=GHaskins@novell.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=dbahi@novell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox