On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:00:31PM -0000, Michael van Elst wrote:
> bou...@antioche.eu.org (Manuel Bouyer) writes:
>
> >But the clock softint shouldn't be locked out for 16s, ever.
>
> Then the clock softint must have a higher priority than
> everything else including hard interrupts.
>
> Obviously that's not how the system is designed, there
> are no limits on how long specific events may take and
> thus no guarantee for lower priority tasks to actually
> execute with a certain time. That would be some kind
> of real-time system.
But obviously such events are not expected to take a long time, or
they would have been deffered to lower priority, preemptible tasks.
Letting such events run for a long time wedges the system.
I still maintain that the bug here is the network soft interrupt running
for such a long time, without gigving a chance to other tasks
>
> Such systems also rarely panic if they detect a violation
> of their rules.
>
> In any case, locking out lower priority tasks by an
> overwhelmed network layer probably isn't the bug that
> we look for.
I disagree. And the heartbeat panic is here to help locate such bugs.
--
Manuel Bouyer <bou...@antioche.eu.org>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--
