> hm, maybe. But I'm not sure that touch_nmi_watchdog() will hold off a
> soft lockup warning. Maybe it will.
It should:
124static inline void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
125{
126 arch_touch_nmi_watchdog();
127 touch_softlockup_watchdog();
128}
>
> And please let's get the above thoughts into the
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:43:47 -0400 Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
>
> > Soft lockup: kernel has run for too long without rescheduling
> > Hard lockup: kernel has run for too long with interrupts disabled
> >
> > Both of these are detected by the NMI watchdog handler.
> >
> > 9b6e63cbf85b89b2d fixes a
> Soft lockup: kernel has run for too long without rescheduling
> Hard lockup: kernel has run for too long with interrupts disabled
>
> Both of these are detected by the NMI watchdog handler.
>
> 9b6e63cbf85b89b2d fixes a soft lockup by adding a manual rescheduling
> point. Replacing that with
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:45:46 -0400 Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
> > >
> > > We must remove cond_resched() because we can't sleep anymore. They were
> > > added to fight NMI timeouts, so I will replace them with
> > > touch_nmi_watchdog() in a follow-up fix.
> >
> > This makes no sense. Any code sect
> >
> > We must remove cond_resched() because we can't sleep anymore. They were
> > added to fight NMI timeouts, so I will replace them with
> > touch_nmi_watchdog() in a follow-up fix.
>
> This makes no sense. Any code section where we can add cond_resched()
> was never subject to NMI timeouts
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:04:30 -0400 Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > @@ -1506,7 +1506,6 @@ static void __init deferred_free_pages(int nid, int
> > > zid, unsigned long pfn,
> > > } else if (!(pfn & nr_pgmask)) {
> > >
Hi Andrew,
> > +/* Disable interrupts and save previous IRQ state in flags before locking
> > */
> > +static inline
> > +void pgdat_resize_lock_irq(struct pglist_data *pgdat, unsigned long *flags)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long tmp_flags;
> > +
> > + local_irq_save(*flags);
> > + local_irq_disa
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:08:06 -0500 Pavel Tatashin
wrote:
> Vlastimil Babka reported about a window issue during which when deferred
> pages are initialized, and the current version of on-demand initialization
> is finished, allocations may fail. While this is highly unlikely scenario,
> since t
8 matches
Mail list logo
