"Farnitano, Jarrett" <jmf@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On 6/11/18, 4:00 PM, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Is there a practical problem with unresponsiveness? You are talking >> an embedded machine and rarely are there people in front of embedded >> computers these days. > > I did run into a practical problem. Hardware watchdogs on embedded > systems can have short timers on the order of seconds. If the system > is locked up for a few seconds with only a single core available, the > watchdog may not be pet in a timely fashion. If this happens, the > hardware watchdog will fire and reset the system. > > This really only becomes a problem when you are working with a single > core, a decently sized initrd, and have a constrained hardware > watchdog. That would do it. My foggy memory says this was not included back in the days where cond_resched was spelled "if (need_resched) schedule();" There were concerns with spreading that too thin. cond_resched in this path seems as reasonable as anything. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
