From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752164Ab0DSVvq (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:51:46 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:13302 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751201Ab0DSVvo (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:51:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:51:27 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , peterz@infradead.org, gorcunov@gmail.com, aris@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, randy.dunlap@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup Message-ID: <20100419215127.GO15159@redhat.com> References: <1271366710-17468-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <20100416014712.GC15570@nowhere> <20100419212135.GN15159@redhat.com> <20100419213529.GA855@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100419213529.GA855@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Don Zickus wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:47:14AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > > The new nmi_watchdog (which uses the perf event subsystem) is very > > > > similar in structure to the softlockup detector. Using Ingo's suggestion, > > > > I combined the two functionalities into one file, kernel/watchdog.c. > > > > > > > > Now both the nmi_watchdog (or hardlockup detector) and softlockup detector > > > > sit on top of the perf event subsystem, which is run every 60 seconds or so > > > > to see if there are any lockups. > > > > Hello all, > > > > After making a bunch of cleanups, I am stuck debating whether to continue > > updating this patch on the stale branch perf/nmi on Ingo's tree or just > > repost the whole patch again (which isn't much bigger just adds the > > arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c piece). > > > > Part of the new patch series includes removing kernel/nmi_watchdog.c, which > > seemed kinda silly because it was only an intermediate file until things got > > shifted to kernel/watchdog.c > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd prefer relative patches as the current perf/nmi bits are tested quite > well. > > Intermediate stages are not a problem: 90% of the code in the kernel's Git > history is 'intermediate' as well, in hindsight. What matters is that the > workflow that resulted was clean and that the patches were (and are) clean. Ok, I'll continue that then. Thanks. Cheers, Don