Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:36:54 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: "arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: enhanced watchdog. Message-ID: <50FAD9B6.6050303@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <1861.1358605280@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <201301190604.r0J64RbW009298@svn.freebsd.org> <50FA3D36.4080709@mu.org> <1861.1358605280@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/19/13 6:21 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <50FA3D36.4080709@mu.org>, Alfred Perlstein writes: > >> We at iX are trying to enhance the watchdog and we think some of the >> changes may benefit the community as a whole. > The initial watchdog support was generalized from only two examples > and therefore quite crude. > > I think your proposed improvements make good sense. Thanks for the kind words. > > I will generally warn you not to make things too complex though, > it's important that the watchdog subsystem does not become a > cause of failure on its own. Agreed. I get very nervous when I see rtprio calls in any program and will certainly tread very carefully here. > > Having a kernel thread which tries to get attention some delta-T > before the hardware watchdog is supposed to kick in, also sounds > like a good idea, but its information is going to be quite unreliable. > > One wish I have heard, was to be able to use multiple WD's separately, > the current API sort of treats them as a redundant pool. Yes, this also is interesting to me. I started sketching up some ways to do this, but then realized I was probably reinventing the wheel. Can someone refer me to examples of a system I could crib from instead of starting from scratch? -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50FAD9B6.6050303>