On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 02:20:14PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Then someone needs to convince Linus to export touch_nmi_watchdog
> again.
>
> Or how about checking if interrupts are off here (iirc we have
> a generic function for that now) and then using
> a smaller timeout and otherwise schedule_timeout() ?
The interrupt state doesn't tell us whether we can schedule. It
tells us when we can't schedule, which is different from when we
can. For example:
spin_lock(foo_lock);
...
printk("blah blah blah\n");
...
spin_unlock(foo_lock);
This context is non-preemptable, but doesn't have IRQs disabled.
The solution would be to keep a "spinlock depth" counter, but
obviously that's not a possibility.
I would agree that the most correct thing to do would be to export
touch_nmi_watchdog()... if only Linus would accept the arguments
_for_ exporting it.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
