Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather thantouching it
From: Prarit Bhargava
Date: Wed Mar 28 2007 - 09:36:36 EST
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
I haven't really worked out how this should interact with the nmi
watchdog; touch_nmi_watchdog() still ends up calling
touch_softlockup_watchdog(), so there's still some redundancy here.
touch_nmi_watchdog is attempting to tickle _all_ CPUs softlockup watchdogs.
Currently, the code is incorrect -- it is calling
touch_softlockup_watchdog which touches only the current CPU's
I don't like the idea of having touch_softlockup_watchdog exported with
your new code -- we still have two methods of effecting the softlockup
watchdog and that's confusing and its going to cause serious problems
down the road. The nmi watchdog code seems fine with just touching the
CPU's nmi watchdogs.
Is there a reason that you're pushing the enable/disable? All the cases
called out seem to be just fine with calls to either effect that CPU's
softlockup watchdog or doing all CPU's softlockup watchdogs. I'm not
sure I see the benefit of complicating the softlockup watchdog code with
I agree with the first patch of this set -- it makes sense. But beyond
that I'm not convinced the rest of the code is needed ... IMO.
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/