* Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- question about NMI watchdog
@ 2008-08-15 12:49 David Witbrodt
2008-08-15 13:26 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Witbrodt @ 2008-08-15 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Yinghai Lu, linux-kernel, Paul E. McKenney, Peter Zijlstra,
Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, netdev
> > I found something very interesting about the commit that first causes
> > the lockup (3def3d6d...), and the very next commit (1e934dda...) -- if
> > I checkout 1e94... and try to revert the changes made in 3def..., the
> > kernel freezes in spite of the revert.
> >
> > Because of this, I would conclude that your patch for 2.6.27-rc3 was
> > doomed before you began, and we should look more carefully at the
> > commits from February instead of trying to revert at the 2.6.27 HEAD.
>
> i'm still wondering whether we could try to figure out something about
> the nature of the hard lockup itself.
>
> Have you tried to activate the NMI watchdog? It _usually_ works fine if
> you use a boot option along the lines of:
>
> "lapic nmi_watchdog=2 idle=poll"
I have to go to work for a few hours right now, but will try this out when
I get home. (Actually, I'm late for work as I type this... but I have my
priorities straight! ;)
Quick question: a quick browse of 'Documentation/nmi_watchdog.txt' suggests
that I should use "nmi_watchdog=1", since I have SMP (CPU = Athlon 64 X2,
with CONFIG_SMP=y). Should I follow your suggestion later, or follow the
recommendation of the 'nmi_watchdog.txt' doc?
Much thanks,
Dave W.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- question about NMI watchdog
2008-08-15 12:49 HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- question about NMI watchdog David Witbrodt
@ 2008-08-15 13:26 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2008-08-15 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Witbrodt
Cc: Yinghai Lu, linux-kernel, Paul E. McKenney, Peter Zijlstra,
Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, netdev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]
* David Witbrodt <dawitbro@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Quick question: a quick browse of 'Documentation/nmi_watchdog.txt'
> suggests that I should use "nmi_watchdog=1", since I have SMP (CPU =
> Athlon 64 X2, with CONFIG_SMP=y). Should I follow your suggestion
> later, or follow the recommendation of the 'nmi_watchdog.txt' doc?
you could try both, starting with nmi_watchdog=2 - and trying
nmi_watchdog=1 if that doesnt work. The problem with nmi_watchdog=1 is
that it disables high-res timers. (because it has to - it piggy-backs on
the back of a periodic timer interrupt)
you might even want to test the NMI watchdog with an intentional
user-space hard lockup - with the attached lockupcli.c program.
(Warning: if you run it as root it will really lock up your box hard.
Run it from a VGA text mode console to see any console messages.)
Ingo
[-- Attachment #2: lockupcli.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 46 bytes --]
main ()
{
iopl(3);
for (;;) asm("cli");
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-08-15 13:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-08-15 12:49 HPET regression in 2.6.26 versus 2.6.25 -- question about NMI watchdog David Witbrodt
2008-08-15 13:26 ` Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).