[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101105135117.GA27712@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:18 +0200
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: fweisbec@...il.com, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local
cpu not every one
On (11/04/10 21:18), Don Zickus wrote:
> void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> {
> + /*
> + * Using __raw here because some code paths have
> + * preemption enabled. If preemption is enabled
> + * then interrupts should be enabled too, in which
> + * case we shouldn't have to worry about the watchdog
> + * going off.
> + */
> + __raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
> +
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
> +
> +void touch_all_nmi_watchdogs(void)
> +{
> if (watchdog_enabled) {
> unsigned cpu;
>
> @@ -151,7 +166,7 @@ void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
> }
> touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_nmi_watchdogs);
>
Hello,
Seems like no one is actually calling touch_all_nmi_watchdogs, as for now.
Right?
Minor nit
touch_all_nmi_watchdogs:
...
for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
if (per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) != true)
per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) = true;
}
which is, I belive, could be simplified to
for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) = true;
}
Sergey
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists