On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 01:15:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17 2021 at 15:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> I so wish we could just delete all of this horror instead of making it
> >> more horrible.
> >
> > Revis
On Sat, Apr 17 2021 at 15:54, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> I so wish we could just delete all of this horror instead of making it
>> more horrible.
>
> Revisit deleting it in five years if there are no issues, whatever
> "issue" might
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 21:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> > #define WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 4)
> > +#define WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 6)
>
> That's ~15ms which is a tad l
On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 21:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> #define WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 4)
> +#define WATCHDOG_MAX_SKEW (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 6)
That's ~15ms which is a tad large I'd say...
> static void clocksource_watchdog_work(struct work_struc
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 10:45:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 21:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> > #define WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 4)
>
> Didn't we discuss that the threshold is too big ?
Indeed we did! How about lik
On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 21:35, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> #define WATCHDOG_THRESHOLD (NSEC_PER_SEC >> 4)
Didn't we discuss that the threshold is too big ?
6 matches
Mail list logo