Re: [patch 1/2] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

[Prarit Bhargava]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/