Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

Prarit Bhargava wrote:
  

quoted

I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog
and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour.
    

Why?  Is that more correct?  It seems to me that you're interested in
whether a specific CPU has gone and locked up.  If touching the watchdog
  
makes it update all CPU timestamps, then you'll hide the fact that other
CPUs have locked up, won't it?

  

In case of misuse, yes.  But there are cases where we know that all CPUs 
will have softlockup issues, such as when doing a "big" sysrq-t dump.  
When doing the sysrq-t we take the tasklist_lock which prevents all 
other CPUs from scheduling -- this leads to bogus softlockup messages, 
so we need to reset everyone's watchdog just before releasing the 
tasklist_lock.

Another question -- are you going to expose disable/enable_watchdog to 
other subsystems?  Or are you going to expose touch_softlockup_watchdog?

    J