[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix BUG using smp_processor_id() in touch_nmi_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog
    On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 22:57 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: 
    > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from
    > > non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO. It's hard to see why
    > > anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off
    > > code. Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be
    > > called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall().
    > >
    > > That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by
    > > accident! An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least.
    > >
    > >
    > > The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called
    > > from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO. If I have a piece of
    > > code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
    > > for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do
    > > that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without
    > > needing to go non-preemptible.
    > Ok, so here is my patch that syncs the touch_*_watchdog back in line with
    > the old semantics. Hopefully this will undo any harm I caused.

    Was this patch forgotten?

    Best regards,
    Maxim Levitsky

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-26 12:17    [W:0.022 / U:14.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site