Re: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdogand touch_softlockup_watchdog

[Don Zickus]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from
> non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO.  It's hard to see why
> anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off
> code.  Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be
> called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall().
> 
> That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by
> accident!  An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least.
> 
> 
> The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called
> from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO.  If I have a piece of
> code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
> for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do
> that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without
> needing to go non-preemptible.

Wow.  So after re-reading what the original touch_*_watchdog code did and what I
copied to kernel/watchdog.c, I'm a little embarrassed on how I managed to
mangle the internals of both those functions.

While the idea is the same, the semantics are clearly different.

touch_nmi_watchdog had a for_each_cpu_present loop, which means it didn't
have to deal with the preempt issue.

touch_softlockup_watchdog used __raw_get_cpu_var to excuse itself from
dealing with the preempt issue.

I'll put together a patch that brings those functions back in line with
what they used to be.  Sorry for the trouble.

Cheers,
Don

--
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/