Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-02-01 Thread Mike Lykov
01.02.2013 19:59, Don Zickus пишет: > Hmm, that seems to make sense. I was expecting that problem to pop up on > my end but didn't see. I just asusmed the boot code didn't use that > decompressor. Can you accumulate all our discussion and create one right-coded, kernelcode-styled patch? >

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-02-01 Thread Mike Lykov
31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет: I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things run a little slower. Compiled tested only. In my case (3.2.32) it cannot compile: LD

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-02-01 Thread Mike Lykov
31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет: I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things run a little slower. Compiled tested only. In my case (3.2.32) it cannot compile: LD

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-02-01 Thread Mike Lykov
01.02.2013 19:59, Don Zickus пишет: Hmm, that seems to make sense. I was expecting that problem to pop up on my end but didn't see. I just asusmed the boot code didn't use that decompressor. Can you accumulate all our discussion and create one right-coded, kernelcode-styled patch?

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-31 Thread Mike Lykov
30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет: > I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try > 'watchdog_thresh=30' instead? Ok. "kernel.watchdog_thresh=30" is a sysctl presentation, i mixed them wrongly. Your patch about cmd support for 'watchdog_thresh=30' working. I

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-31 Thread Mike Lykov
30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет: I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try 'watchdog_thresh=30' instead? Ok. kernel.watchdog_thresh=30 is a sysctl presentation, i mixed them wrongly. Your patch about cmd support for 'watchdog_thresh=30' working. I tested

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-30 Thread Mike Lykov
29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет: The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could accidentally trip the detection. Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than decompress lzma

Re: [BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-30 Thread Mike Lykov
29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет: The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could accidentally trip the detection. Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than decompress lzma

[BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-29 Thread Mike Lykov
Hi all! I have "embedded" computer, based on DM Vortex86DX (like i486/FPU/600Mhz/256Mb RAM). I boot it with own builded kernel & own compressed initramfs based on ALTLinux. When I used initramfs compressed with gzip -9 it worked good. But now I need downsize initramfs, and try to change

[BUG?] false positive in soft lockup detector while unlzma initramfs on slow cpu

2013-01-29 Thread Mike Lykov
Hi all! I have embedded computer, based on DMP Vortex86DX (like i486/FPU/600Mhz/256Mb RAM). I boot it with own builded kernel own compressed initramfs based on ALTLinux. When I used initramfs compressed with gzip -9 it worked good. But now I need downsize initramfs, and try to change gzip