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
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
