All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Josh Hunt <johunt@akamai.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, uobergfe@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: don't run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:28:58 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160315142858.GZ194535@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56E78957.6020707@akamai.com>

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:02:31PM -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
> On 03/14/2016 11:29 AM, Don Zickus wrote:
> >
> >Hi Josh,
> >
> >I believe Uli thought the below patch might fix it.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Don
> 
> Don
> 
> It looks like I was incorrect when I said 4.5 was getting the soft lockup. I
> originally found this problem on 4.1.19 and saw both the problem my patch
> solves and the soft lockups there. I thought when I checked 4.5 that I saw
> both issues there as well, but going back and checking now that is not the
> case. I only see the issue my patch resolves on 4.5.
> 
> With that info my changelog is incorrect now as it states I saw a soft
> lockup on the head. I will submit a v2 of my patch with the updated
> changelog. I'll also cc stable this time as I'd like to see this fix end up
> there as well.
> 
> As for the soft lockups showing up on 4.1, I tried Uli's patch and it did
> not help. After that I did a git bisect to figure out when the soft lockup
> was fixed and it appears to be resolved after one of the commits in this
> series:
> 
> commit 81a4beef91ba4a9e8ad6054ca9933dff7e25ff28
> Author: Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@redhat.com>
> Date:   Fri Sep 4 15:45:15 2015 -0700
> 
>     watchdog: introduce watchdog_park_threads() and
> watchdog_unpark_threads()
> 
> I didn't identify the exact commit.
> 
> It would be nice to resolve the soft lockup for the stable folks since 4.1
> and 4.4 are longterm stable releases and would see this problem.
> 
> I did not have time to debug it any more outside of this bisection today. If
> you have something you'd like me to try which may work for the stable
> kernels I'm happy to test it.
> 
> For the record I'm able to reproduce the soft lockup on 4.1 doing:
> 
> while :; do echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog; sleep .1; done & sleep
> 30 && kill %1 && sleep 5


Thanks for the feedback Josh!  Good to know the softlockup was fixed
already. :-)

Cheers,
Don

  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-15 14:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-12 23:50 [PATCH] watchdog: don't run proc_watchdog_update if new value is same as old Joshua Hunt
2016-03-14 14:34 ` Don Zickus
2016-03-14 14:45   ` Josh Hunt
2016-03-14 16:29     ` Don Zickus
2016-03-15  4:02       ` Josh Hunt
2016-03-15 14:28         ` Don Zickus [this message]
2016-03-16  9:21         ` Ulrich Obergfell
2016-03-17 16:08           ` Josh Hunt
2016-03-18 11:05             ` Ulrich Obergfell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160315142858.GZ194535@redhat.com \
    --to=dzickus@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=johunt@akamai.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=uobergfe@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.