Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:51:27 -0400 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup |
| |
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very > > > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion, > > > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c. > > > > > > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector > > > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so > > > > to see if there are any lockups. > > > > Hello all, > > > > After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue > > updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just > > repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece). > > > > Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which > > seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got > > shifted to kernel/watchdog.c > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd prefer relative patches as the current perf/nmi bits are tested quite > well. > > Intermediate stages are not a problem: 90% of the code in the kernel's Git > history is 'intermediate' as well, in hindsight. What matters is that the > workflow that resulted was clean and that the patches were (and are) clean.
Ok, I'll continue that then. Thanks.
Cheers, Don
| |