Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:59:10 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work |
| |
On Wed, Jul 25 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > * 2^30ns == 1.074s. > > > */ > > > -static unsigned long get_timestamp(void) > > > +static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu) > > > { > > > - return sched_clock() >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */ > > > + return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */ > > > } > > > > > > void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void) > > > { > > > - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp(); > > > + int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id(); > > > + > > > + per_cpu(touch_timestamp, this_cpu) = get_timestamp(this_cpu); > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog); > > > > > > @@ -95,7 +97,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void) > > > return; > > > > argh. afacit this was never sent, except as part of some jumbopatch > > called "sched: implement cpu_clock(cpu) high-speed time source". > > > > That patch helped. > > > > It's all a plot. > > sorry, it's really my fault: i decoupled it from the jumbopatch (so that > the new API could go in first) but forgot to re-send that crutial bit. > There's also the patch below (Jens Cc:-ed) to update blktrace. I guess i > should do a softlockup.git tree to avoid such foul-ups in the future. > > Ingo > > -----------------------> > Subject: blktrace: use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock() > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock(). (the latter is not a proper > clock-source) > > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
I tested it, seems to work fine for me.
Acked-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |