From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:09:04 +0200
Message-ID: <200703281609.04956.ak@suse.de>
References: <20070327214919.800272641@goop.org> <200703281550.04224.ak@suse.de> <460A74EF.6000700@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751143AbXC1OJN@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <460A74EF.6000700@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, John Hawkes <hawkes@sgi.com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

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.

-Andi