[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46094C02.9050702@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:53:22 -0400
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@...hat.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog
>> and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour.
>>
>
> Why? Is that more correct? It seems to me that you're interested in
> whether a specific CPU has gone and locked up. If touching the watchdog
>
> makes it update all CPU timestamps, then you'll hide the fact that other
> CPUs have locked up, won't it?
>
>
In case of misuse, yes. But there are cases where we know that all CPUs
will have softlockup issues, such as when doing a "big" sysrq-t dump.
When doing the sysrq-t we take the tasklist_lock which prevents all
other CPUs from scheduling -- this leads to bogus softlockup messages,
so we need to reset everyone's watchdog just before releasing the
tasklist_lock.
Another question -- are you going to expose disable/enable_watchdog to
other subsystems? Or are you going to expose touch_softlockup_watchdog?
> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists