01.02.2013 19:59, Don Zickus пишет:
> Hmm, that seems to make sense. I was expecting that problem to pop up on
> my end but didn't see. I just asusmed the boot code didn't use that
> decompressor.
Can you accumulate all our discussion and create one right-coded,
kernelcode-styled patch?
>
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:44:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
> 31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет:
>
> >>>I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
> >>>touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things
> >>>run a little slower. Compiled tested only.
> >>
31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет:
I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things
run a little slower. Compiled tested only.
In my case (3.2.32) it cannot compile:
LD
31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет:
I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things
run a little slower. Compiled tested only.
In my case (3.2.32) it cannot compile:
LD
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:44:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
31.01.2013 18:46, Don Zickus пишет:
I also attached another patch as suggested by Andrew to add a
touch_softlockup_watchdog in the unlzma routine. Probably makes things
run a little slower. Compiled tested only.
In my case
01.02.2013 19:59, Don Zickus пишет:
Hmm, that seems to make sense. I was expecting that problem to pop up on
my end but didn't see. I just asusmed the boot code didn't use that
decompressor.
Can you accumulate all our discussion and create one right-coded,
kernelcode-styled patch?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 03:21:02PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
>
> 30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет:
> > I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try
> > 'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?
>
> Ok. "kernel.watchdog_thresh=30" is a sysctl presentation, i mixed
> them wrongly.
30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет:
> I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try
> 'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?
Ok. "kernel.watchdog_thresh=30" is a sysctl presentation, i mixed them
wrongly.
Your patch about cmd support for 'watchdog_thresh=30' working. I
* Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:33:48 -0500
> Don Zickus wrote:
>
> > --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> > +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> > @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ static int __init softlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
> > }
> > __setup("softlockup_panic=", softlockup_panic_setup);
> >
> >
* Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:33:48 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ static int __init softlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
}
__setup(softlockup_panic=,
30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет:
I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try
'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?
Ok. kernel.watchdog_thresh=30 is a sysctl presentation, i mixed them
wrongly.
Your patch about cmd support for 'watchdog_thresh=30' working. I tested
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 03:21:02PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
30.01.2013 19:40, Don Zickus пишет:
I have never seen usage like 'kernel.watchdog_thresh=30'. Could you try
'watchdog_thresh=30' instead?
Ok. kernel.watchdog_thresh=30 is a sysctl presentation, i mixed
them wrongly.
Your
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:51 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48:27PM +0530, anish kumar wrote:
> > Sorry for digressing from the topic but I think there is something wrong
> > with my understanding or something wrong with the code.So I guess Don
> > can clarify this.
> > If I
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48:27PM +0530, anish kumar wrote:
> Sorry for digressing from the topic but I think there is something wrong
> with my understanding or something wrong with the code.So I guess Don
> can clarify this.
> If I pass this below parameter during boot i.e. setting
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 01:39:23PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
> 29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
>
> >The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
> >the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
> >accidentally trip the detection.
>
>
29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
accidentally trip the detection.
Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than
decompress lzma
29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
accidentally trip the detection.
Inyerestingly, that a decompress of lzma -4 takes longer time than
decompress lzma
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 01:39:23PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
29.01.2013 19:33, Don Zickus пишет:
The softlockup mechanism works scheduling a high priority task that kicks
the softlockups. If the unzip thread is taking too long, it could
accidentally trip the detection.
Inyerestingly, that
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48:27PM +0530, anish kumar wrote:
Sorry for digressing from the topic but I think there is something wrong
with my understanding or something wrong with the code.So I guess Don
can clarify this.
If I pass this below parameter during boot i.e. setting watchdog_enabled
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 10:51 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:48:27PM +0530, anish kumar wrote:
Sorry for digressing from the topic but I think there is something wrong
with my understanding or something wrong with the code.So I guess Don
can clarify this.
If I pass this
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:33:48 -0500
Don Zickus wrote:
> --- a/kernel/watchdog.c
> +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ static int __init softlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
> }
> __setup("softlockup_panic=", softlockup_panic_setup);
>
> +static int __init watchdog_thresh_setup(char
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:33 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:42:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
> >
> > So my questions:
> >
> > 1. Are there a BUG in soft lockup detection mechanizm? Changing
> > watchdog_thresh to 30 have a side effect in production - D-state
>
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:42:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
>
> So my questions:
>
> 1. Are there a BUG in soft lockup detection mechanizm? Changing
> watchdog_thresh to 30 have a side effect in production - D-state
> userspace processes will be detected slowly. Are there a need to
>
Hi all!
I have "embedded" computer, based on DM Vortex86DX (like
i486/FPU/600Mhz/256Mb RAM).
I boot it with own builded kernel & own compressed initramfs based on
ALTLinux. When I used initramfs compressed with gzip -9 it worked good.
But now I need downsize initramfs, and try to change
Hi all!
I have embedded computer, based on DMP Vortex86DX (like
i486/FPU/600Mhz/256Mb RAM).
I boot it with own builded kernel own compressed initramfs based on
ALTLinux. When I used initramfs compressed with gzip -9 it worked good.
But now I need downsize initramfs, and try to change gzip
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:42:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
So my questions:
1. Are there a BUG in soft lockup detection mechanizm? Changing
watchdog_thresh to 30 have a side effect in production - D-state
userspace processes will be detected slowly. Are there a need to
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 10:33 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:42:43PM +0400, Mike Lykov wrote:
So my questions:
1. Are there a BUG in soft lockup detection mechanizm? Changing
watchdog_thresh to 30 have a side effect in production - D-state
userspace
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:33:48 -0500
Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote:
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ static int __init softlockup_panic_setup(char *str)
}
__setup(softlockup_panic=, softlockup_panic_setup);
+static int __init
28 matches
Mail list logo
