Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup

From: Cyrill Gorcunov
Date: Fri Apr 16 2010 - 10:38:42 EST


On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
[...]
> > +
> > +/* Callback function for perf event subsystem */
> > +void watchdog_overflow_callback(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
> > + struct perf_sample_data *data,
> > + struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + unsigned long touch_ts = per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu);
> > +
> > + if (touch_ts == 0) {
> > + __touch_watchdog();
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* check for a hardlockup
> > + * This is done by making sure our timer interrupt
> > + * is incrementing. The timer interrupt should have
> > + * fired multiple times before we overflow'd. If it hasn't
> > + * then this is a good indication the cpu is stuck
> > + */
> > + if (is_hardlockup(this_cpu)) {
> > + /* only print hardlockups once */
> > + if (cpumask_test_cpu(this_cpu, to_cpumask(hardlockup_mask)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (hardlockup_panic)
> > + panic("Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu %d", this_cpu);
> > + else
> > + WARN(1, "Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu %d", this_cpu);
> > +
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(this_cpu, to_cpumask(hardlockup_mask));
>
>
>
> May be have an arch spin lock there to update your cpu mask safely.
>

Hmm, this is NMI handler path so from what we protect this per-cpu data?
Do I miss something? /me confused

-- Cyrill
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/