Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:52:52 -0500 | From | Dimitri Sivanich <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime |
| |
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 06:55:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > good idea - but why dont you set softlockup_thresh to 0, which is the > "off" switch already? (and that way it can be turned back on later as > well, by the sysadmin.) >
I'm getting unaligned access errors trying to set it to anything, so it's not working for me currently (2.6.25):
It's tripping up on the address of 'one', which is an int that is not properly aligned for the unsigned long comparison in proc_doulongvec_minmax on my 64 bit machine. Also, the value '0' is invalid for softlockup_thresh, correct?
I temporarily got around these issues with the following hack.
Index: linux/kernel/sysctl.c =================================================================== --- linux.orig/kernel/sysctl.c 2008-04-16 21:49:44.000000000 -0500 +++ linux/kernel/sysctl.c 2008-04-28 13:37:43.000561710 -0500 @@ -748,9 +748,9 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = { .data = &softlockup_thresh, .maxlen = sizeof(unsigned long), .mode = 0644, - .proc_handler = &proc_doulongvec_minmax, + .proc_handler = &proc_dointvec_minmax, .strategy = &sysctl_intvec, - .extra1 = &one, + .extra1 = &zero, .extra2 = &sixty,
Also, I'm not convinced that changing this to 0 does indeed switch off softlockup detection (but I could be missing something):
void softlockup_tick(void) { .. .. /* Warn about unreasonable delays: */ if (now <= (touch_timestamp + softlockup_thresh)) return; per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu) = touch_timestamp;
spin_lock(&print_lock); printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %lus! [%s:%d]\n", this_cpu, now - touch_timestamp, current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
Dimitri
| |