From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932065AbXC1PWF (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:22:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932247AbXC1PWF (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:22:05 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:38699 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932065AbXC1PWE (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:22:04 -0400 Message-ID: <460A8820.3060708@goop.org> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:22:08 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Prarit Bhargava CC: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Eric Dumazet , Andrew Morton , Chris Lalancette , John Hawkes Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it References: <20070327214919.800272641@goop.org> <20070327215828.085422178@goop.org> <460A6EC0.4020701@redhat.com> <460A7F57.9020006@goop.org> <460A80E6.9040003@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <460A80E6.9040003@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Prarit Bhargava wrote: > You don't have to do them all -- you could do one with (as in my > previous patch -- which I'm not married to BTW ;) ) > > touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog() > > and all with > > touch_softlockup_watchdog() Well, I think changing the meaning of touch_softlockup_watchdog() for all existing callers is wrong - even if you change most of them to refer to the cpu-local function. There are definitely specific occasions on which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general case. The only thing I really care about in my patches is ignoring stolen time. It may be that fixing that is enough to fix the reported problems with spurious watchdog messages on tickless idle CPUs. J