![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 23:39 -0700, David Miller wrote: > Two changets after the buggy cpu_clock() changes, we have: > > commit 15934a37324f32e0fda633dc7984a671ea81cd75 > Author: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr> > Date: Sat Apr 19 19:44:57 2008 +0200 > > sched: fix rq->clock overflows detection with CONFIG_NO_HZ > > When using CONFIG_NO_HZ, rq->tick_timestamp is not updated every TICK_NSEC. > We check that the number of skipped ticks matches the clock jump seen in > __update_rq_clock(). > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> > > Which also causes softlockup warnings on my Niagara systems. > > Note this is with the cpu_clock() change reverted, and the > usual test case kernel build after a delay: > > sleep 10m; time make -j64 >build.log 2>&1; make -j64 image The effect of this one is that it should properly account idle time in rq->clock when waking from nohz. This 'extra' idle time would then propagate through cpu_clock() into the softlockup code. Could it be we touch the soft watchdog before we correct all these idle times? | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-23 08:53 [W:0.122 / U:0.200 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||