On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 09:37:04AM +0800, Chai Wen wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 09:36 AM, Chai Wen wrote:
>
> > On 08/19/2014 04:38 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> * Don Zickus wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So I agree with the motivation
On 08/19/2014 09:36 AM, Chai Wen wrote:
> On 08/19/2014 04:38 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * Don Zickus wrote:
>>>
>>> So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
>>> is this implementation namespace-safe?
>>
On 08/19/2014 04:38 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Don Zickus wrote:
>>
>> So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
>> is this implementation namespace-safe?
>
> What namespace are you worried about coll
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 09:02:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Don Zickus wrote:
>
> > > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
> > > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > > >
> > > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I
> > > > thought sof
* Don Zickus wrote:
> > > > So I agree with the motivation of this improvement, but
> > > > is this implementation namespace-safe?
> > >
> > > What namespace are you worried about colliding with? I
> > > thought softlockup_ would provide the safety?? Maybe I
> > > am missing something obvi
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:01:58PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > duration = is_softlockup(touch_ts);
> > > > if (unlikely(duration)) {
> > > > + pid_t pid = task_pid_nr(current);
> > > > +
> > > > /*
> > > > * If a virtual machine i
* Don Zickus wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:03:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Don Zickus wrote:
> >
> > > From: chai wen
> > >
> > > For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process
> > > softlockup.
> > > But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:03:19AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Don Zickus wrote:
>
> > From: chai wen
> >
> > For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process
> > softlockup.
> > But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at the time slot
> > between
> > the tas
* Don Zickus wrote:
> From: chai wen
>
> For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process softlockup.
> But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at the time slot
> between
> the task switch of two processes hogging that cpu to reset soft_watchdog_warn.
>
> An ex
From: chai wen
For now, soft lockup detector warns once for each case of process softlockup.
But the thread 'watchdog/n' may not always get the cpu at the time slot between
the task switch of two processes hogging that cpu to reset soft_watchdog_warn.
An example would be two processes hogging th
10 matches
Mail list logo
