From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932315AbXC1P2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:28:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932319AbXC1P2W (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:28:22 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:39406 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932315AbXC1P2V (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:28:21 -0400 Message-ID: <460A8966.6090208@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:27:34 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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> <460A8820.3060708@goop.org> In-Reply-To: <460A8820.3060708@goop.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > 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. Hmmm .... it was suggested to me that I should mimic what touch_nmi_watchdog() does. > There are definitely specific occasions on > which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general > case. > Yep. That's why I have both a single cpu touch and the whole shebang :) > 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 >