[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080813095715.GB27074@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:57:15 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86_64 UV: Use blinking LED for heartbeat display
>
> * Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG
> > +static void uv_display_heartbeat(void)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + uv_hub_info->led_heartbeat_count = nr_cpu_ids;
> > +
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + struct uv_hub_info_s *hub = uv_cpu_hub_info(cpu);
> > +
> > + if (hub->led_heartbeat_count > 0) {
> > + uv_set_led_bits_on(cpu, LED_CPU_BLINK,
> > + LED_CPU_HEARTBEAT);
> > + --hub->led_heartbeat_count;
> > + }
>
> this too is a bad idea. Imagine 16K cores and assume that each such
> iteration takes a few usecs (we write cross CPU) and you've got a
> GHz-ish CPU. That can easily be _milliseconds_ of delay (or more) - and
> in a function (the clocksource watchdog) that is all about precise
> timings.
>
> It is also very non-preemptable.
LED subsystem already has nice heartbeat trigger.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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