Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather thantouching it

[Prarit Bhargava]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007 16:00, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
>   
> > > > touch_nmi_watchdog is attempting to tickle _all_ CPUs softlockup watchdogs.
> > > >     
> > > >         
> > > It is supposed to only touch the current CPU, just like it only touches
> > > the NMI watchdog on the current CPU.
> > >
> > >   
> > >       
> > Andi,
> >
> > (sorry for the cut-and-paste). 
> >
> > touch_nmi_watchdogs sets EACH CPUs alert_counter to 0.
> >     
>
> You're right. Sorry for the confusion.  
>
> But just touching the current CPU would make much more sense. After all
> the caller doesn't know anything about the state of other CPUs. Perhaps it would be best
> to just change that and keep the softlockup semantics.
>   
Yeah -- you're probably right, and besides that we're not seeing a crazy 
# of softlockup messages after touch_nmi_watchdogs calls.

My original comments regarding the code still stand though -- we 
shouldn't have multiple methods of playing with the softlockup watchdog.

P.

> -Andi
>   
-
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/