[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100416161401.GI15159@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:14:01 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org, gorcunov@...il.com,
aris@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 05:32:12PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > I'll try to implement this. Any objections if I combined hardlockup and
> > softlockup with per cpu watchdog_warn and have bit masks for HARDLOCKUP
> > and SOFTLOCKUP? I hate to just waste per cpu space for this.
>
>
>
> Hmm, a hardlockup can come in after a softlockup.
Let me re-explain what I meant. It was meant to do double duty. The
softlockup code only checks the SOFTLOCKUP bit and the hardlockup only
ever checks the HARDLOCKUP bit.
ie if get_cpu_var(watchdog_warn) && HARDLOCKUP { return; }
> Don't worry too much about memory: usually the more you have cpu,
> the more you have memory :)
> Plus this is debugging code, not something supposed to be enabled
> in production.
Well depends on your POV. In RHEL we enable both NMI_WATCHDOG and
SOFTLOCKUP on production systems (and we have customers that are
thankful for that :-) ).
Cheers,
Don
--
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