On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:35:22PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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'?.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/