From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>,
John Hawkes <hawkes@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:22:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <460A8820.3060708@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <460A80E6.9040003@redhat.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-03-28 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-03-27 21:49 [patch 0/4] Revised softlockup watchdog improvement patches Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-27 21:49 ` [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 6:49 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 6:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 7:09 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 17:51 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 17:57 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 18:16 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 18:32 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 20:00 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 20:14 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 20:46 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 20:24 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 20:33 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 20:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-04-24 20:52 ` Daniel Walker
2007-04-24 20:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-04-24 21:01 ` Daniel Walker
2007-04-24 21:14 ` Andrew Morton
2007-04-24 21:20 ` Andi Kleen
2007-04-24 21:33 ` Daniel Walker
2007-03-27 21:49 ` [patch 2/4] percpu enable flag for " Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-27 21:49 ` [patch 3/4] Locally disable the softlockup watchdog rather than touching it Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-28 13:33 ` Prarit Bhargava
2007-03-28 13:50 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-28 14:00 ` Prarit Bhargava
2007-03-28 14:09 ` Andi Kleen
2007-03-28 14:13 ` Prarit Bhargava
2007-03-28 14:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-03-28 14:51 ` Prarit Bhargava
2007-03-28 15:22 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2007-03-28 15:27 ` Prarit Bhargava
2007-03-27 21:49 ` [patch 4/4] Add global disable/enable for softlockup watchdog Jeremy Fitzhardinge
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=460A8820.3060708@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clalance@redhat.com \
--cc=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).