Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:32:29 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: watchdog end-user interface Message-ID: <7a74df08-b5d9-5629-b71e-b577d8876e5d@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <ec3dfab5-c3bc-e9e5-181e-8c2704f60acd@FreeBSD.org> References: <ec3dfab5-c3bc-e9e5-181e-8c2704f60acd@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/19/16 4:09 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > I know that there are people thinking about improving our watchdog > infrastructure. Maybe it's time to discuss some ideas in public. > > I would like to start with discussing the end-user, or rather administrative, > interface to the watchdog system. > > watchdogd always had -t timeout option. > Not a too long time ago it has also grown a handful of new options: > --softtimeout > --softtimeout-action action > --pretimeout timeout > --pretimeout-action action > > I want to question if those options really belong to watchdogd. > When a watchdog timer expires that results in a system-wide action (like a > system reset). To me, that implies that there should be a single system-wide > configuration point. And I am not sure that the daemon is the best choice for it. > > Personally I would prefer a sysctl interface for the following reasons: > - easier to change the configuration > - easier to query current values > - easier to signal that a value getting set may be different from a requested value > > In my opinion, watchdogd should only be concerned with running a check action > and patting the dog(s). And, by extension, WDIOCPATPAT should not re-configure > the timeout, it should just reload the timers. > Please look at the Linux interface for watchdogs, it is pretty good and could/should be ported to us. -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7a74df08-b5d9-5629-b71e-b577d8876e5d>