Prarit Bhargava wrote: > There are some situations when soft lockup warnings are expected in the > kernel. For example, when doing an alt-sysrq-t on a large number of > processes, > the dump to console can take a long time and the tasklist_lock is held over > that period. This results in a bogus soft lockup warning. >
Wouldn't it be better to just temporarily disable softlockups for the duration? > This patch reworks touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch ALL cpu's > touch_timestamp. It also introduces touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog to touch > a single cpu's touch_timestamp. Doesn't this mean that if one CPU gets locked up, it will be undetected so long as some other CPU is making progress? I have another pair of softlockup patches in which I try to address: * ignoring time stolen by hypervisors * threads going to sleep tickless for long periods of time I could easy add a "global disable" function, which would allow long sysrq messages, and it would help Thilo with his long flash update freezes. J - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/