Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Prarit Bhargava wrote:
I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog
and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour.
Why? Is that more correct? It seems to me that you're interested in
whether a specific CPU has gone and locked up. If touching the watchdog
makes it update all CPU timestamps, then you'll hide the fact that other
CPUs have locked up, won't it?
In case of misuse, yes. But there are cases where we know that all CPUs
will have softlockup issues, such as when doing a "big" sysrq-t dump.
When doing the sysrq-t we take the tasklist_lock which prevents all
other CPUs from scheduling -- this leads to bogus softlockup messages,
so we need to reset everyone's watchdog just before releasing the
tasklist_lock.
Another question -- are you going to expose disable/enable_watchdog to
other subsystems? Or are you going to expose touch_softlockup_watchdog?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
