[lkml]   [2006]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] increase spinlock-debug looping timeouts from 1 sec to 1 min

* Andrew Morton <> wrote:

> OK. That sucks. A sufficiently large machine with the right mix of
> latencies will get hit by the NMI watchdog in write_lock_irq().
> But presumably the situation is much worse with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK
> because of that __delay().
> So how about we remove the __delay() (which is wrong anyway, because
> loops_per_jiffy isn't calculated with a write_trylock() in the loop
> (which means we're getting scarily close to the NMI watchdog at
> present)).
> Instead, calculate a custom loops_per_jiffy for this purpose in
> lib/spinlock_debug.c?

hm, that would be yet another calibration loop with the potential to be
wrong (and which would slow down the bootup process). If loops_per_jiffy
is wrong then our timings are toast anyway.

I think increasing the timeout to 60 secs ought to be enough - 1 sec was
a bit too close to valid delays and i can imagine really high loads
causing 1 sec delays (especially if something like SysRq-T is holding
the tasklist_lock for long).

The write_trylock + __delay in the loop is not a problem or a bug, as
the trylock will at most _increase_ the delay - and our goal is to not
have a false positive, not to be absolutely accurate about the
measurement here.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-06-19 10:42    [W:0.136 / U:73.728 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site