On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:14:31PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 22:57 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:01:56PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The surprise new requirement that touch_nmi_watchdog() be called from
> > > non-preemptible code does seem to make sense IMO. It's hard to see why
> > > anyone would be touching the watchdog unless he's spinning in irqs-off
> > > code. Except, of course, when we have a utility function which can be
> > > called from wither irqs-on or irqs-off: acpi_os_stall().
> > >
> > > That being said, it's not good to introduce new API requirements by
> > > accident! An audit of all callers should first be performed, at least.
> > >
> > >
> > > The surprise new requirement that touch_softlockup_watchdog() be called
> > > from non-preemptible code doesn't make sense IMO. If I have a piece of
> > > code in the kernel which I expect to sit in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state
> > > for three minutes waiting for my egg to boil, I should be able to do
> > > that and I should be able to touch the softlockup detector without
> > > needing to go non-preemptible.
> >
> > Ok, so here is my patch that syncs the touch_*_watchdog back in line with
> > the old semantics. Hopefully this will undo any harm I caused.
>
> Was this patch forgotten?
Hm, apparently it was separated out by the mail server. Here it is again
with some of the headers removed I guess.
Cheers,
Don
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:48:26 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [lockup detector] sync touch_*_watchdog back to old semantics
During my rewrite, the semantics of touch_nmi_watchdog and
touch_softlockup_watchdog changed enough to break some drivers
(mostly over preemptable regions).
This change brings those touch_*_watchdog functions back in line
to how they used to work.
Signed-off-by: Don Zickus <dzickus@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/watchdog.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 613bc1f..99e35a2 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static void __touch_watchdog(void)
void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
{
- __get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
+ __raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_touch_ts) = 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
@@ -142,7 +142,14 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void)
#ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
void touch_nmi_watchdog(void)
{
- __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true;
+ if (watchdog_enabled) {
+ unsigned cpu;
+
+ for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
+ if (per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) != true)
+ per_cpu(watchdog_nmi_touch, cpu) = true;
+ }
+ }
touch_softlockup_watchdog();
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog);
@@ -430,6 +437,9 @@ static int watchdog_enable(int cpu)
wake_up_process(p);
}
+ /* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
+ watchdog_enabled = 1;
+
return 0;
}
@@ -452,9 +462,6 @@ static void watchdog_disable(int cpu)
per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, cpu) = NULL;
kthread_stop(p);
}
-
- /* if any cpu succeeds, watchdog is considered enabled for the system */
- watchdog_enabled = 1;
}
static void watchdog_enable_all_cpus(void)
--
1.7.2.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
