Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2007 10:39:23 -0400 | From | Prarit Bhargava <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog |
| |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > --- > kernel/softlockup.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > =================================================================== > --- a/kernel/softlockup.c > +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c > @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ > > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(print_lock); > > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, touch_timestamp); > -static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, touch_timestamp); > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, print_timestamp); > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task); > > static int did_panic = 0; > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static struct notifier_block panic_block > > void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void) > { > - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = jiffies; > + __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = sched_clock(); > } >
I'd like to see this patch implement/fix touch_cpu_softlockup_watchdog and touch_softlockup_watchdog to mimic touch_nmi_watchdog's behaviour.
See this now obsolete patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/15/131
P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |