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>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061215230404.E1244>