On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 12:58:31PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 16:26, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:01:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 02 2021 at 15:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> I buy the vCPU preemption part and TBH
On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 16:26, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:01:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 02 2021 at 15:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> I buy the vCPU preemption part and TBH guests should not have that
>> watchdog thing active at all for exactly this
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 10:01:58AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02 2021 at 15:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > If there is a sufficient delay between reading the watchdog clock and the
> > clock under test, the clock under test will be marked unstable through no
> >
On Fri, Apr 02 2021 at 15:48, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> If there is a sufficient delay between reading the watchdog clock and the
> clock under test, the clock under test will be marked unstable through no
> fault of its own. This series checks for this, doing limited retries
> to get
Hello!
If there is a sufficient delay between reading the watchdog clock and the
clock under test, the clock under test will be marked unstable through no
fault of its own. This series checks for this, doing limited retries
to get a good set of clock reads. If the clock is marked unstable
and
5 matches
Mail list logo
