From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936185AbXGSSpt (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756556AbXGSSpm (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:42 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:44588 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751926AbXGSSpl (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:45:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:45:36 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shai@scalex86.org Subject: Re: [patch] Change softlockup trigger limit using a kernel parameter Message-ID: <20070719184536.GB10940@elte.hu> References: <20070716222650.GA5947@localdomain> <20070718160858.75865461.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070719054121.GA15074@localdomain> <20070718230907.741ae56c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070719091142.GA28723@elte.hu> <20070719183129.GB20298@localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070719183129.GB20298@localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote: > > also, i think the valid threshold should be between 1 and 60 seconds > > i think. > > 60 seconds! Is that not a pretty high threshold? The reason for > lowering the tolerance threshold from 10s is to catch bugs early in > lab environments, but why do we need to raise the tolerance thresh > beyond 10s? just in case someone sees false positives and wants to turn it off. Ingo