Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:13:00 +0200
* Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@xxxxxxx> wrote:
ah, sorry. But ... perhaps using threshold -1 would be the most
intuitive setting? (for 'infinite timeout' ==> softlockup detector
turned off) That way it all becomes configurable as part of the
threshold? No strong opinion though.
Having the ability to switch it off dynamically would be nice to have,
but will need a little work yet. Any solution should also minimize
the amount of time spent in softlockup_tick.
Either '0' or '-1' seems OK to me, but if '-1' turns it off, do we
allow a value of '0'?.
i think <= 0 should be the condition for "off". That means both -1 and 0
would be OK.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Dimitri Sivanich
- Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Dimitri Sivanich
- Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- From: Dimitri Sivanich
- [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Sort ordering
- Next by Date: [patch 00/15] 2nd batch of s390 patches for 2.6.26
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] disable softlockup detection at boottime
- Next by thread: [PATCH] spi_mpc83xx: test below 0 on unsigned irq in mpc83xx_spi_probe()
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
