linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:22:08 -0700
From:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To:	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Chris Lalancette <clalance@...hat.com>,
	John Hawkes <hawkes@....com>
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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/