Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:14:01PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > I'll try to implement this.  Any objections if I combined hardlockup and
> > > softlockup with per cpu watchdog_warn and have bit masks for HARDLOCKUP
> > > and SOFTLOCKUP?  I hate to just waste per cpu space for this.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hmm, a hardlockup can come in after a softlockup.
> 
> Let me re-explain what I meant.  It was meant to do double duty.  The
> softlockup code only checks the SOFTLOCKUP bit and the hardlockup only
> ever checks the HARDLOCKUP bit.
> 
> ie if get_cpu_var(watchdog_warn) && HARDLOCKUP { return; }


Ah right.



> 
> > Don't worry too much about memory: usually the more you have cpu,
> > the more you have memory :)
> > Plus this is debugging code, not something supposed to be enabled
> > in production.
> 
> Well depends on your POV.  In RHEL we enable both NMI_WATCHDOG and
> SOFTLOCKUP on production systems (and we have customers that are
> thankful for that :-) ).


Ok :)

--
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/