From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: softlockup interaction with slow consoles
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:05:37 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0602210404330.3092@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <p73mzgk4y9u.fsf@verdi.suse.de> <20060221.120143.15763934.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060221.120143.15763934.davem@davemloft.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200602212105.38075.ak@suse.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1007
Lines: 28

On Tuesday 21 February 2006 21:01, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> Date: 21 Feb 2006 14:49:49 +0100
> 
> > Still you could probably see problems with very slow consoles even
> > after bootup, couldn't you?
> 
> Yes, others have mentioned this too, good point.
> 
> Depending upon what we're really trying to achieve with the
> softlockup stuff, we can perhaps look into increasing the
> timeout or making it configurable.  We could even do this
> dynamically, so when we register a serial console running
> at some low baud rate, we scale up the softlockup timeout
> or something like that.

The classic way is to just use touch_nmi_watchdog() somewhere
in the loop that does work. That touches the softwatchdog too
these days.

-Andi

 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/