Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:16:18 +0100 (CET) From: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org> To: FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: WD_PASSIVE kernel based tickling of the watchdog - request for ideas Message-ID: <20061215230404.E1244@localhost>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
I've got two requests for a clue ... er... ideas today on how to implement the WD_PASSIVE flag in the watchdog(9) interface: - How would I best implement the tickling of the watchdog at specified intervals (e.g. 1/2 the watchdog timeout value)? By using a - timeout - kernel thread sleeping most of the time - hardclock() considering the trade-off between large variance in frequency vs. making sure we notice a (permanent) freeze in the kernel somewhere. For example burning a CD sometimes makes my laptop freeze for a short period. Will the watchdog fire in that case? - What do we consider a 'bad' situation in which the watchdog should not be tickled? What kind of checks would we need to perform? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Nick P.S.: I'm personally not interested in passive tickling of the watchdog, so if there is no response, I'll leave the implementation as is (return EOPNOTSUPP at the moment).home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061215230404.E1244>