Re: extend sysmon watchdog modes?

[Cliff Neighbors <cliff%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Basically the hypothetical system is still alive, just bogged 
under interrupt load, and will resume normal functioning when 
the load relents.

Ability to recover makes a significantly different case from a
system in some pathological halt, infinite fault, deadlock or spin.

Also, if the watchdog tickle were called from softnet, then the 
stack could be still functioning, vs. from callout (softclock)
the watchdog would time out.

The mode of the watchdog should be a matter of policy depending on the 
application. As others are saying, the (proposed) ITICKLE policy
is not appropriate for some (most) systems. But the mechanism could be 
flexible to allow it where needed.

     -cliff-


On May 26, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:

> I don't understand the use case.  I am running watchdogs in user tickle,
> and consider the machine wedged if it can't run the tickle code in 30s.