Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.13-rc4-V0.7.52-01

[Ingo Molnar]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ingo,
> 
> What's with the "BUG: possible soft lockup detected on CPU..."? I'm 
> getting a bunch of them from the IDE interrupt.  It's not locking up, 
> but it does things that probably do take some time.  Is this really 
> necessary? Here's an example dump:

doh - it's Daniel not Cc:-ing lkml when sending me patches, so people 
dont know what's going on ...

here's the patch below. Could you try to revert it?

	Ingo

On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 20:27 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> looks good, but i'd suggest to use printk_ratelimit(). (and the use of 
> u16 can be a performance hit on x86 due to potential 16-bit prefixes - 
> the best thing to use is an 'int' on pretty much every arch. with 
> printk_ratelimit() this flag go away anyway.)


Ok, here's with your suggestions.


Index: linux-2.6.12/kernel/softlockup.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.12.orig/kernel/softlockup.c	2005-07-31 15:31:09.000000000 +0000
+++ linux-2.6.12/kernel/softlockup.c	2005-07-31 18:43:35.000000000 +0000
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
 
 #include <linux/mm.h>
 #include <linux/cpu.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/kthread.h>
@@ -19,6 +20,7 @@ static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(print_lock);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timeout) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timestamp) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, prev_task);
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task);
 
 static int did_panic = 0;
@@ -56,6 +58,23 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 		if (!per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu))
 			return;
 
+		if (per_cpu(prev_task, this_cpu) != current || 
+			!rt_task(current)) {
+			per_cpu(prev_task, this_cpu) = current;
+		}
+		else if (printk_ratelimit()) {
+
+			spin_lock(&print_lock);
+			printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: possible soft lockup detected on CPU#%u! %lu-%lu(%lu)\n",
+				this_cpu, jiffies, timestamp, timeout);
+			dump_stack();
+#if defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
+			nmi_show_all_regs();
+#endif
+			spin_unlock(&print_lock);
+
+		}
+
 		wake_up_process(per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu));
 		per_cpu(timeout, this_cpu) = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(1000);
 	}
@@ -71,7 +90,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 		per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu) = timestamp;
 
 		spin_lock(&print_lock);
-		printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#%d! %ld-%ld(%ld)\n",
+		printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#%u! %lu-%lu(%lu)\n",
 			this_cpu, jiffies, timestamp, timeout);
 		dump_stack();
 #if defined(__i386__) && defined(CONFIG_SMP)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/