| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200703281550.04224.ak@suse.de> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:50:04 +0200 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> To: virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John Hawkes <hawkes@....com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it On Wednesday 28 March 2007 15:33, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > I haven't really worked out how this should interact with the nmi > > watchdog; touch_nmi_watchdog() still ends up calling > > touch_softlockup_watchdog(), so there's still some redundancy here. > > > > > > touch_nmi_watchdog is attempting to tickle _all_ CPUs softlockup watchdogs. It is supposed to only touch the current CPU, just like it only touches the NMI watchdog on the current CPU. > > Currently, the code is incorrect -- it is calling > touch_softlockup_watchdog which touches only the current CPU's > softlockup watchdog. Sounds correct to me. -Andi > - 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