On Wednesday 28 March 2007 15:33, Prarit Bhargava wrote: > > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > I haven't really worked out how this should interact with the nmi > > watchdog; touch_nmi_watchdog() still ends up calling > > touch_softlockup_watchdog(), so there's still some redundancy here. > > > > > > 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. > > Currently, the code is incorrect -- it is calling > touch_softlockup_watchdog which touches only the current CPU's > softlockup watchdog. Sounds correct to me. -Andi > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
