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 processes will be detected slowly. Are there a need to
> > detecting soft lockups at boot time? Maybe it need after initramfs
you want to disable it then you can do that with nosoftlockup parameter
in kernel-parameters.
> > boot only when userspace processes begin to work?
If my understanding is correct you can do this as well by enabling
watchdog using sysctl.
>
> 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.
>
> Seeing that you are running on a 600 MHz machine, it could be possible.
> Though I am not entirely sure how the scheduling works for decompressing
> the initramfs. I wouldn't think it is that high of a priority.
>
> >
> > 2. How to change watchdog_thresh parameter at boot without patching
> > sources? If it necessary (with it side effects) maybe implement it
> > as commandline parameter or config compile time parameter?
>
> I attached a patch below that allows you to set it a boot time. Let me
> know if this works for you, then I can clean it up and post it properly.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
> index 75a2ab3..e448d63 100644
> --- 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 *str)
> +{
> + watchdog_thresh = simple_strtoul(str, NULL, 0);
> +
> + return 1;
> +}
> +__setup("watchdog_thresh=", watchdog_thresh_setup);
> +
> static int __init nowatchdog_setup(char *str)
> {
> watchdog_enabled = 0;
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
to zero.
__setup("nowatchdog", nowatchdog_setup);
Now I use sysctl to enable the watchdog then wouldn't the below code
will hinder enabling the watchdog?
static void watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void)
{//snip
if (watchdog_disabled) { /* this is zero ?? */
watchdog_disabled = 0;
//snip
}
Should watchdog_disabled be set to 1?Or is it that we always disable the
watchdog and then enable it?
This code is used from long time and that is the reason I am puzzled as
to how it can be wrong?I think there is some missing piece which I am
not understanding.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
