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.
> >
> >
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"
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
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
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
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 ?
When the clocksource watchdog marks a clock as unstable, this might
be due to that clock being unstable or it might be due to delays that
happen to occur between the reads of the two clocks. Yes, interrupts are
disabled across those two reads, but there are no shortage of things that
can delay
7 matches
Mail list logo
