Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:22:08 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it |
| |
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. There are definitely specific occasions on which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general case.
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |