From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: kan.liang@intel.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dzickus@redhat.com,
mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
babu.moger@oracle.com, atomlin@redhat.com, prarit@redhat.com,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, peterz@infradead.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, eranian@google.com, acme@redhat.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/watchdog: fix spurious hard lockups
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:40:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170628114058.GB5234@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170620213309.30051-1-kan.liang@intel.com>
On Tue 20-06-17 14:33:09, kan.liang@intel.com wrote:
> From: Kan Liang <Kan.liang@intel.com>
>
> Some users reported spurious NMI watchdog timeouts.
>
> We now have more and more systems where the Turbo range is wide enough
> that the NMI watchdog expires faster than the soft watchdog timer that
> updates the interrupt tick the NMI watchdog relies on.
AFAIR the watchdog doesn't rely on deferred timers so this would suggest
that a standard hrtimer can expire much later than programmed, right?
If that is the case how come other parts of the system do not break. We
do rely on hrtimers on many other places?
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-28 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-20 21:33 kan.liang
2017-06-20 22:03 ` Andrew Morton
2017-06-21 12:40 ` Liang, Kan
2017-06-21 13:47 ` Don Zickus
2017-06-21 14:10 ` Liang, Kan
2017-06-20 22:34 ` Prarit Bhargava
2017-06-20 23:00 ` Andi Kleen
2017-06-21 0:12 ` Prarit Bhargava
2017-06-21 21:02 ` Marc Herbert
2017-06-21 13:40 ` Don Zickus
2017-06-21 14:02 ` Liang, Kan
2017-06-28 11:40 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2017-06-28 13:24 ` Liang, Kan
2017-06-28 14:29 ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-28 14:32 ` Liang, Kan
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=20170628114058.GB5234@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
--cc=babu.moger@oracle.com \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®