On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 21:25 +0200, Hans-Juergen Mauser wrote: [...] > Here we see > again how bad the documentation of open-source projects sometimes is > cared about... even when configuring a kernel, the config help says that > the nmi watchdog had to be enabled consciously by a boot parameter I don't see any documentation saying that; maybe you're looking at the wrong version. But thanks for the general criticism anyway, it really helps to motivate developers. > - in > fact it seems to be activated by default as soon as SMP code is loaded > and/or an APIC is detected (but though the presence of an APIC, I have > not seen those NMIs on my uniprocessor P3 machines yet). It actually depends on whether the processor has a PMU (performance monitoring unit) with a useful counter. > Here is a link to my description on the German "debianforum": > http://debianforum.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=134210 > > I would like to report the bug to http://bugzilla.kernel.org if it has > not yet been done by someone else. Therefore it would be great if you > could give me a short note if you have reported it already. > > Basically I think this mechanism has its bugs and/or wrong assumptions > on some machines and should undergo a critical review. [...] I think it's fine and has nothing to do with the problem. Since you say it has taken 1-8 days for any problem to appear, I suppose you will have to wait a few weeks to have some confidence that 'nowatchdog' makes a difference. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Every program is either trivial or else contains at least one bug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part