On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:48:22PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I haven't heard back any test result yet. > > > > The above patch looks good to me. > > This needs performance testing. It may slow down performance or latency > sensitive workloads.
More motivation to work through the issues with the proposed real fix? :-) > > > Which workaround do you prefer, the above one or the one checking timestamp? > > I prefer the earlier patch, it has far less risk of performance issues. But now you are slowing down the nmi_watchdog so much that the watchdog_thresh hold becomes meaningless, no? (granted the turbo-mode blows it out of the water too) So now folks who depend on the 10/5/1/whatever second reliability lose that. I think that might be unfair too. The hrtimer increase maintains that and just adds a few more interrupts/second. Cheers, Don
