lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it


Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> 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.
Hmmm .... it was suggested to me that I should mimic what
touch_nmi_watchdog() does.

> There are definitely specific occasions on
> which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general
> case.
>

Yep. That's why I have both a single cpu touch and the whole shebang :)

> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-03-28 17:31    [W:0.182 / U:0.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site