From: Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>
To: Pratyush Anand <panand@redhat.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
fu.wei@linaro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com, wim@iguana.be,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:17:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <572A2099.4070901@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160504155932.GH13045@dhcppc6.redhat.com>
Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Its unique to SBSA because you have very little timeout here. kexec-tools
> upstream does not have any mechanism to handle watchdog timeout. Lets say even
> if we implement a framework there, the best it can do is to ping the watchdog
> again.
Ok, so it's more accurate to say that kexec has a minimum watchdog
timeout requirement. What happens if the system admin sets the timeout
to 5 seconds arbitrarily? The system will reset during kexec, no matter
which hardware is used.
This still sounds like a band-aid to me. We're just assuming that we
need a timeout of at least 20 seconds to support kexec. Frankly, this
still sounds like a problem the kexec developers needs to acknowledge
and deal with.
Still I'm okay with a patch that extends the timeout by programming WCV,
but it has to be commented as a hack specifically to support kexec
because the timeout might be too short. Then Wim can decide whether he
supports such changes.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: timur@codeaurora.org (Timur Tabi)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:17:29 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <572A2099.4070901@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160504155932.GH13045@dhcppc6.redhat.com>
Pratyush Anand wrote:
> Its unique to SBSA because you have very little timeout here. kexec-tools
> upstream does not have any mechanism to handle watchdog timeout. Lets say even
> if we implement a framework there, the best it can do is to ping the watchdog
> again.
Ok, so it's more accurate to say that kexec has a minimum watchdog
timeout requirement. What happens if the system admin sets the timeout
to 5 seconds arbitrarily? The system will reset during kexec, no matter
which hardware is used.
This still sounds like a band-aid to me. We're just assuming that we
need a timeout of at least 20 seconds to support kexec. Frankly, this
still sounds like a problem the kexec developers needs to acknowledge
and deal with.
Still I'm okay with a patch that extends the timeout by programming WCV,
but it has to be commented as a hack specifically to support kexec
because the timeout might be too short. Then Wim can decide whether he
supports such changes.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum, a Linux Foundation collaborative project.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-04 16:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-03 8:20 [PATCH RFC] Watchdog: sbsa_gwdt: Enhance timeout range Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 8:20 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 12:12 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 12:12 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 13:24 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 13:24 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 13:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 14:17 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 14:17 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 14:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 14:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 15:04 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 15:04 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 13:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 13:29 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 14:38 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 14:38 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 15:07 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 15:07 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-03 15:51 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 15:51 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-03 17:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-03 17:16 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-04 14:14 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 14:14 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 14:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-04 14:21 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-04 15:59 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 15:59 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-04 16:17 ` Timur Tabi [this message]
2016-05-04 16:17 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 16:43 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 16:43 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 18:20 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-05 18:20 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-05 18:20 ` Pratyush Anand
2016-05-05 18:22 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 18:22 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 18:22 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:36 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:36 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:36 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:38 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:38 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:38 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:45 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:45 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-05 23:45 ` Timur Tabi
2016-05-06 0:18 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-06 0:18 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-06 0:18 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:51 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:51 ` Guenter Roeck
2016-05-05 23:51 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=572A2099.4070901@codeaurora.org \
--to=timur@codeaurora.org \
--cc=Suravee.Suthikulpanit@amd.com \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=fu.wei@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=panand@redhat.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.