Re: [discuss] [PATCH] fix x86-64 condition to call nmi_watchdog_tick

>>> Andi Kleen <[email protected]> 09.09.05 10:43:01 >>>
>On Thursday 08 September 2005 18:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> (Note: Patch also attached because the inline version is certain to
get
>> line wrapped.)
>>
>> Don't call nmi_watchdog_tick() when this isn't enabled.
>
>Hmm, I think i will concur with Zwane's objection to this for now.

And I understand the concerns. Nevertheless, the code right now, on
properly working systems and with the watchdog enabled (but not active)
results in bad NMIs to be supressed (because the code returns right
after calling nmi_watchdog_tick). I'd think that on systems as Zwane
describes one should simply not enable the watchdog (and for this reason
I continue to believe that like on i386 the default should be to have no
watchdog).

Jan
-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] fix x86-64 condition to call nmi_watchdog_tick
    • From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [discuss] [PATCH] fix x86-64 condition to call nmi_watchdog_tick
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] set stack pointer in init_tss and init_thread
• Next by Date: [-mm PATCH 6/6] jbd: use list_head for a transaction checkpoint list
• Previous by thread: Re: [discuss] [PATCH] fix x86-64 condition to call nmi_watchdog_tick
• Next by thread: [RFC][PATCH] unify build_zonelists()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]