linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] [lockup detector] sync touch_*

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, 1 Sep 2010 20:36:32 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	fweisbec@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] [lockup detector] sync touch_*_watchdog back to
	old semantics

On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:51:12AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> Top posting because droid won't let me bottom post
> 
> This patch was the result of a regression with acpi and preempt.
> Akpm asked that I not change the semantics of the old touch_nmi_watchdog.
> So I tried to revert to the old behaviour.
> 
> Sorry for not properly explaining that.
> 

yup, stareing at old behaviour I think there is a place where we could
get rid of traversing all cpus: native_cpu_up() -- I don't get the reason why
watchdog counter should be reset on every other cpu as well. Perhaps
I miss something. On the other hands I think changing behaviour of
touch_nmi_watchdog just for one entry might not be worth thing to do :)

> Cheers,
> Don
> 
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
...
> >Ok - can you cite the old watchdog code, did it really do a nr_cpus 
> >loop?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >	Ingo

	-- Cyrill
--
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/