Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Prarit Bhargava wrote: > >> I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog >> and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour. >> > > Why? Is that more correct? It seems to me that you're interested in > whether a specific CPU has gone and locked up. If touching the watchdog > > makes it update all CPU timestamps, then you'll hide the fact that other > CPUs have locked up, won't it? > > In case of misuse, yes. But there are cases where we know that all CPUs will have softlockup issues, such as when doing a "big" sysrq-t dump. When doing the sysrq-t we take the tasklist_lock which prevents all other CPUs from scheduling -- this leads to bogus softlockup messages, so we need to reset everyone's watchdog just before releasing the tasklist_lock. Another question -- are you going to expose disable/enable_watchdog to other subsystems? Or are you going to expose touch_softlockup_watchdog? > J > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
