On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:54:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:07:57 -0700 Spencer Baugh wrote:
>
> > From: Joern Engel
> >
> > We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> > kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:07:57 -0700 Spencer Baugh wrote:
> From: Joern Engel
>
> We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
> monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:35:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> > One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
> > panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
> > real benefit is that we
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:35:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> > One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
> > panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
> > real benefit is that we
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
> panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
> real benefit is that we get better debug data for the failing component.
> If we had a kernel bug,
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 06:07, Spencer Baugh wrote:
>
> From: Joern Engel
>
> We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
> monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
> the
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:41:48AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 22:18 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > Not sure if this patch is something for mainline, but those two
> > alternatives have problems of their own. Not panicking on lockups can
> > leave a system disabled
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:35:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
real benefit is that we get
On Jul 22, 2015, at 06:07, Spencer Baugh sba...@catern.com wrote:
From: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 07:41:48AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 22:18 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
Not sure if this patch is something for mainline, but those two
alternatives have problems of their own. Not panicking on lockups can
leave a system disabled until some
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:35:28AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
real benefit is that we get
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 23:33 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
One could argue that killing the realtime thread is even better than
panic, as things can restart with a blank slate even faster. But the
real benefit is that we get better debug data for the failing component.
If we had a kernel bug, the
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:07:57 -0700 Spencer Baugh sba...@catern.com wrote:
From: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 03:54:36PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:07:57 -0700 Spencer Baugh sba...@catern.com wrote:
From: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 22:18 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:36:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
> >
> > > We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> > > kernel bug existed. Instead
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:36:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
>
> > We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> > kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
> > monopolized a cpu. So
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
> We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
> kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
> monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
> the entire system.
If you
From: Joern Engel
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
the entire system.
Signed-off-by: Joern Engel
Signed-off-by: Spencer
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
the entire system.
If you
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:36:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 22:18 -0700, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 06:36:30AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 15:07 -0700, Spencer Baugh wrote:
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a
From: Joern Engel jo...@logfs.org
We have observed cases where the soft lockup detector triggered, but no
kernel bug existed. Instead we had a buggy realtime thread that
monopolized a cpu. So let's kill the responsible party and not panic
the entire system.
Signed-off-by: Joern Engel
22 matches
Mail list logo
