Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather thantouching it

[Prarit Bhargava]

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>   
> > You don't have to do them all -- you could do one with (as in my
> > previous patch -- which I'm not married to BTW ;) )
> >
> > touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog()
> >
> > and all with
> >
> > touch_softlockup_watchdog()
> >     
>
> Well, I think changing the meaning of touch_softlockup_watchdog() for
> all existing callers is wrong - even if you change most of them to refer
> to the cpu-local function.  
Hmmm .... it was suggested to me that I should mimic what 
touch_nmi_watchdog() does.

> There are definitely specific occasions on
> which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general
> case.
>   

Yep.  That's why I have both a single cpu touch and the whole shebang :)

> The only thing I really care about in my patches is ignoring stolen
> time.  It may be that fixing that is enough to fix the reported problems
> with spurious watchdog messages on tickless idle CPUs.
>
>   

>     J
>   
-
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/