Re: [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_watchdog

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 1:46 pm

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:23:59AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:


In fact I worry a bit about this unification of watchdog touching.
When we touch the softlockup watchdog, do we also want to touch
the nmi watchdog?

Most of the time, I think we don't want to. We usually touch the
softlockup detector because we know we are abnormally delaying
the softlockup kthread from being scheduled, and if we are in such
situation, it means we are doing something in a sensitive context:
typically the kind of context favorable to create hardlockups...

But the opposite is right: if we touch the nmi watchdog: it means we
are abnormally delaying irqs, which means we also are abnormally
delaying the softlockup kthread from being scheduled, so if we
touch the nmi watchdog, we also want to touch the softlockup
detector.

Hence I guess we want to keep the current state:

- touch_nmi_watchdog() = touch softlockup and nmi watchdogs
- touch_softlockup_watchdog() = only touch softlockup watchdog

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchd ..., Frederic Weisbecker, (Wed Apr 21, 1:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchd ..., Frederic Weisbecker, (Wed Apr 21, 2:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH 2/6] [watchdog] convert touch_softlockup_watchd ..., Frederic Weisbecker, (Thu Apr 22, 11:53 am)