Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > 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. Hmmm .... it was suggested to me that I should mimic what touch_nmi_watchdog() does. > There are definitely specific occasions on > which touching all CPUs is the right thing to do, but not in the general > case. > Yep. That's why I have both a single cpu touch and the whole shebang :) > 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
