[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0806181749050.4857@cliff.in.clinika.pl>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:54:32 +0100 (BST)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nmi_watchdog suspicious
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Maciej, it seems we are talking about different code snippets ;)
> I'm talking only about touch_nmi_watchdog(). By now (in -tip tree
> we have)
>
> void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> if (nmi_watchdog == NMI_LOCAL_APIC ||
> nmi_watchdog == NMI_IO_APIC) {
> unsigned cpu;
> ...
>
> so we check explicitly the values (so if touch_nmi_watchdog
> was called when nmi_watchdog = 0 or -1U this code will not
> be executed anyway). So I think I'm a bit lost, Maciej... I just
> can't figure out what is wrong with this code, so please help
> me ;). If you're talking about apic code in _general_ design
> then...well, I think I need some time to _understand_ the code
> say byte-by-byte first.
The value of nmi_watchdog being NMI_IO_APIC or NMI_LOCAL_APIC does not
mean the watchdog has been set up already. This observation applies both
here and elsewhere, e.g. to nmi_watchdog_tick().
Maciej
--
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