On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:37:39PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12:15AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:57:23PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One possibility for
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > And why overcommitment is not a valid reason to generate a softlockup in
> > the first place ?
>
> For the guest I don't believe it is. It isn't the guest's fault it
> couldn't run processes. A warning should be scheduled on the hos
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 05:37:39PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12:15AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:57:23PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > One possibility for a softlockup report in a Linux VM, is that the host
> > > system is ov
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12:15AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:57:23PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > One possibility for a softlockup report in a Linux VM, is that the host
> > system is overcommitted to the point where the watchdog task is unable
> > to make prog
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:57:23PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> One possibility for a softlockup report in a Linux VM, is that the host
> system is overcommitted to the point where the watchdog task is unable
> to make progress (unable to touch the watchdog).
I think I am confused on the VM/
Il 28/06/2013 04:57, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
>
> One possibility for a softlockup report in a Linux VM, is that the host
> system is overcommitted to the point where the watchdog task is unable
> to make progress (unable to touch the watchdog).
>
> Maintain the increment in stolen time for th
6 matches
Mail list logo
