On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 09:49:17AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
quoted text
> > > Why s390 doesn't want the softlockup detector to begin with?
> > 
> > If I remember correctly then we disabled that back then because we got
> > false positives. The reason for those were that the softlockup detector
> > did not take steal time into account.
> > E.g. if a guest cpu runs for 10 seconds, but the hypervisor would steal
> > 9 seconds in order to run other guest cpus this specific cpu would still
> > think it ran for 10 seconds and therefore would generate invalid warnings.
> 
> I have learned recently that is applies to all virtual machines including
> KVM, Xen and VMWare(?).  However, you only see this when you overload the
> hypervisor with lots of guests.  Which is why you normally don't see this
> on those types of guests.

On s390 you always run virtualized and usually even as a 2nd level guest.
Overloading a machine is quite common here.
The problem we have is that you can't tell afterwards if a warning was valid
or invalid due to overloading. Imho it is just pointless without taking steal
time into account and that's why we disabled it.
--
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/