[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100419212135.GN15159@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:21:35 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, mingo@...e.hu
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, gorcunov@...il.com, aris@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very
> > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion,
> > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c.
> >
> > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector
> > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so
> > to see if there are any lockups.
Hello all,
After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue
updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just
repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the
arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece).
Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c,
which seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until
things got shifted to kernel/watchdog.c
Thoughts?
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