On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:09:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:41:21 -0700 Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
>> > Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:51:14AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> just in case someone sees false positives and wants to turn it off.
>
>Why not make 0=off?
A patch to disable softlockup during boot already went in.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> just in case someone sees false positives and wants to turn it off.
Why not make 0=off?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also, i think the valid threshold should be between 1 and 60 seconds
> > i think.
>
> 60 seconds! Is that not a pretty high threshold? The reason for
> lowering the tolerance threshold from 10s is to catch bugs early in
> lab
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:11:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > +softlockup_thresh:
>> > +
>> > +This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance
>> > +threshold. The default threshold is 10s. If a cpu is locked up
>> > +for 10s, the
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +softlockup_thresh:
> > +
> > +This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance
> > +threshold. The default threshold is 10s. If a cpu is locked up
> > +for 10s, the kernel complains. Valid values are 1-10s.
> > +
>
> neato.
please make
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:41:21 -0700 Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
> > Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Kernel warns of softlockups if the
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
> Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
> > on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:41:21 -0700 Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+softlockup_thresh:
+
+This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance
+threshold. The default threshold is 10s. If a cpu is locked up
+for 10s, the kernel complains. Valid values are 1-10s.
+
neato.
please make sure this is
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:11:42AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+softlockup_thresh:
+
+This value can be used to lower the softlockup tolerance
+threshold. The default threshold is 10s. If a cpu is locked up
+for 10s, the kernel complains. Valid
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
also, i think the valid threshold should be between 1 and 60 seconds
i think.
60 seconds! Is that not a pretty high threshold? The reason for
lowering the tolerance threshold from 10s is to catch bugs early in
lab environments, but
Ingo Molnar wrote:
just in case someone sees false positives and wants to turn it off.
Why not make 0=off?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 11:51:14AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
just in case someone sees false positives and wants to turn it off.
Why not make 0=off?
A patch to disable softlockup during boot already went in.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:09:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:41:21 -0700 Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
> on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
> threshold in testing environments to catch potential lockups early.
>
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:26:50 -0700
Ravikiran G Thirumalai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
threshold in testing environments to catch potential lockups early.
Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
threshold in testing environments to catch potential lockups early.
Following patch adds a kernel parameter 'softlockup_lim' to control
the softlockup threshold.
Kernel warns of softlockups if the softlockup thread is not able to run
on a CPU for 10s. It is useful to lower the softlockup warning
threshold in testing environments to catch potential lockups early.
Following patch adds a kernel parameter 'softlockup_lim' to control
the softlockup threshold.
20 matches
Mail list logo