Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:37:45 -0500 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] watchdog: touch_nmi_watchdog should only touch local cpu not every one |
| |
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:58:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 15:51:18 +0200 > Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On (11/04/10 21:18), Don Zickus wrote: > > > void touch_nmi_watchdog(void) > > > { > > > + /* > > > + * Using __raw here because some code paths have > > > + * preemption enabled. If preemption is enabled > > > + * then interrupts should be enabled too, in which > > > + * case we shouldn't have to worry about the watchdog > > > + * going off. > > > + */ > > > + __raw_get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true; > > > + > > > + touch_softlockup_watchdog(); > > > +} > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog); > > > + > > > +void touch_all_nmi_watchdogs(void) > > > +{ > > > if (watchdog_enabled) { > > > unsigned cpu; > > > > > > @@ -151,7 +166,7 @@ void touch_nmi_watchdog(void) > > > } > > > touch_softlockup_watchdog(); > > > } > > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog); > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_all_nmi_watchdogs); > > > > > > > Hello, > > Seems like no one is actually calling touch_all_nmi_watchdogs, as for now. > > Right? > > Yes, there doesn't seem a lot of point in adding the interface unless > we have callers.
Yeah I wasn't sure how to deal with that. It didn't seem like any of the callers was relying on the fact that touch_nmi_watchdog() touched everyone. I just provided it as an option in case I misread someone's use of the touch_nmi_watchdog.
I'll repost and remove it then.
Thanks for the feedback.
Cheers, Don
| |