From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759765AbYD2Mfv (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756757AbYD2Mfg (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:36 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54723 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759139AbYD2Mff (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:35:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:35:22 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Dimitri Sivanich Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime Message-ID: <20080429123522.GK31271@elte.hu> References: <20080423201613.GA8546@sgi.com> <20080428165544.GE18210@elte.hu> <20080428185252.GC1167@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080428185252.GC1167@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > 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. ah, sorry. But ... perhaps using threshold -1 would be the most intuitive setting? (for 'infinite timeout' ==> softlockup detector turned off) That way it all becomes configurable as part of the threshold? No strong opinion though. Ingo