Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:27:34 -0400 | From | Prarit Bhargava <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |