Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:14:35 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Ngie Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: watchdog end-user interface Message-ID: <d29970ff-df5c-f55f-4041-7c34c3f77eae@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAGHfRMCEfO=cCS8MMOf7BRKrCCqGJb-QoQYmpGQK9GUQ%2BxMsLw@mail.gmail.com> References: <ec3dfab5-c3bc-e9e5-181e-8c2704f60acd@FreeBSD.org> <7a74df08-b5d9-5629-b71e-b577d8876e5d@freebsd.org> <CAGHfRMCEfO=cCS8MMOf7BRKrCCqGJb-QoQYmpGQK9GUQ%2BxMsLw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20/10/2016 00:47, Ngie Cooper wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> wrote: > ... >> Please look at the Linux interface for watchdogs, it is pretty good and >> could/should be ported to us. > > We (Isilon) also have a software watchdog implementation (in lieu of > IPMI+watchdogd) to make sure "userspace processes are making > progress". Please tell me more about this. It seems that there could be different definitions of 'software watchdog' and different expectations of what it should do. For example, we have SW_WATCHDOG in the tree for ages. It's a watchdog driver that's driver by clock interrupts and its logic is implemented in software. In the current implementation there is only one timeout action - a panic. Not too long ago Alfred added another software watchdog that's driven by callout-s. To me it's quite alike to SW_WATCHDOG, but it has configurable timeout actions: printf, log, panic, debugger. So, I wonder how Isilon's software watchdog is different from the above two. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d29970ff-df5c-f55f-4041-7c34c3f77eae>