Commit e162b39a, which moved the soft lockup code around a bit,
accidentally reverted commit fb822db4, which extended the soft lockup
timeout from 2 minutes to 8 minutes.
This patch restores it to 8 minutes.
From the original patch:
>Andrew says:
>
>> Seems that about 100% of the reports we get of this warning triggering
>> are sys_sync, transaction commit, etc.
>
>increase the timeout. If it still triggers for people, we can kill it.
Originally-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]>
---
kernel/hung_task.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/kernel/hung_task.c
+++ b/kernel/hung_task.c
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_
/*
* Zero means infinite timeout - no checking done:
*/
-unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs = 120;
+unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs = 480;
unsigned long __read_mostly sysctl_hung_task_warnings = 10;
--
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
* Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Commit e162b39a, which moved the soft lockup code around a bit,
> accidentally reverted commit fb822db4, which extended the soft lockup
> timeout from 2 minutes to 8 minutes.
>
> This patch restores it to 8 minutes.
This patch wont apply, because i already have your other patch committed. Could
you do it against latest -tip:
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
Thanks,
Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 05/06/2011 03:18 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Commit e162b39a, which moved the soft lockup code around a bit,
>> accidentally reverted commit fb822db4, which extended the soft lockup
>> timeout from 2 minutes to 8 minutes.
>>
>> This patch restores it to 8 minutes.
>
> This patch wont apply, because i already have your other patch committed. Could
> you do it against latest -tip:
>
> http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
After Andrew commented, and I agreed, that the sysctl should just be set
instead of adding another config option I was thinking we'd just drop
the other patch and replace it with this one.
- -Jeff
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk3EUH4ACgkQLPWxlyuTD7JL8ACfS1DnnFGjN0j3zwt1eldfk5pu
e20AoInzD0SzxeTH4F1kNKZHHExt9eO+
=qV/f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, 06 May 2011 11:35:26 -0400
Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Commit e162b39a, which moved the soft lockup code around a bit,
> accidentally reverted commit fb822db4, which extended the soft lockup
> timeout from 2 minutes to 8 minutes.
>
> This patch restores it to 8 minutes.
Nit: it's conventional to refer to commits in the following manner:
e162b39a ("softlockup: decouple hung tasks check from softlockup detection")
because a commit can have a different hash in different trees.
Notnit: "softlockup: decouple hung tasks check from softlockup
detection" was merged two years ago. Shouldn't we have a Cc:
<[email protected]> in this changelog?
* Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 05/06/2011 03:18 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jeff Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Commit e162b39a, which moved the soft lockup code around a bit,
> >> accidentally reverted commit fb822db4, which extended the soft lockup
> >> timeout from 2 minutes to 8 minutes.
> >>
> >> This patch restores it to 8 minutes.
> >
> > This patch wont apply, because i already have your other patch committed. Could
> > you do it against latest -tip:
> >
> > http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
>
> After Andrew commented, and I agreed, that the sysctl should just be set
> instead of adding another config option I was thinking we'd just drop
> the other patch and replace it with this one.
Well, since i already applied it please revert it in this second change and
explain that you and Andrew think the config is unnecessary and we can just up
the timeout back to 8 minutes and most everyone will be happy ...
Thanks,
Ingo