From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Dec 15 22:16:22 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658A116A412
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:16:22 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from nick@van-laarhoven.org)
Received: from smtp-1.orange.nl (smtp-1.orange.nl [193.252.22.241])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CF543C9E
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:14:37 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from nick@van-laarhoven.org)
Received: from uitsmijter.van-laarhoven.org (ap-zvhz-13f05.adsl.wanadoo.nl
	[81.69.93.5])
	by mwinf6003.orange.nl (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 99FF9240008C
	for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:16:19 +0100 (CET)
X-ME-UUID: 20061215221619630.99FF9240008C@mwinf6003.orange.nl
Received: (qmail 77821 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2006 22:16:19 -0000
Received: from 10.66.0.143 by uitsmijter.van-laarhoven.org (envelope-from
	<nick@van-laarhoven.org>, uid 82) with qmail-scanner-1.25 
	(clamdscan: 0.88.4/2187. f-prot: 4.6.6/3.16.14. spamassassin: 3.1.7. 
	Clear:RC:1(10.66.0.143):. 
	Processed in 0.375819 secs); 15 Dec 2006 22:16:19 -0000
X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: nick@van-laarhoven.org via
	uitsmijter.van-laarhoven.org
X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.25 (Clear:RC:1(10.66.0.143):. Processed in 0.375819 secs)
Received: from unknown (HELO van-laarhoven.org) (nick@10.66.0.143)
	by uitsmijter.van-laarhoven.org with SMTP; 15 Dec 2006 22:16:18 -0000
Received: (nullmailer pid 5773 invoked by uid 1001);
	Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:16:18 -0000
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:16:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Nick Hibma <nick@van-laarhoven.org>
X-X-Sender: nick@localhost
To: FreeBSD CURRENT Mailing List <current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20061215230404.E1244@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: WD_PASSIVE kernel based tickling of the watchdog - request for ideas
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:16:22 -0000

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).