On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:00:31PM -0000, Michael van Elst wrote: > bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) writes: > > >But the clock softint shouldn't be locked out for 16s, ever. > > Then the clock softint must have a higher priority than > everything else including hard interrupts. > > Obviously that's not how the system is designed, there > are no limits on how long specific events may take and > thus no guarantee for lower priority tasks to actually > execute with a certain time. That would be some kind > of real-time system.
But obviously such events are not expected to take a long time, or they would have been deffered to lower priority, preemptible tasks. Letting such events run for a long time wedges the system. I still maintain that the bug here is the network soft interrupt running for such a long time, without gigving a chance to other tasks > > Such systems also rarely panic if they detect a violation > of their rules. > > In any case, locking out lower priority tasks by an > overwhelmed network layer probably isn't the bug that > we look for. I disagree. And the heartbeat panic is here to help locate such bugs. -- Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org> NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --