Hi Andrew,
Could you please pick these patches up through your tree?
Thanks,
Cyril
On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 14:34 +1100, Cyril Bur wrote:
> When the hypervisor pauses a virtualised kernel the kernel will observe a jump
> in timebase, this can cause spurious messages from the softlockup detector.
>
> Whilst these messages are harmless, they are accompanied with a stack trace
> which causes undue concern and more problematically the stack trace in the
> guest has nothing to do with the observed problem and can only be misleading.
>
> Futhermore, on POWER8 this is completely avoidable with the introduction of
> the Virtual Time Base (VTB) register.
>
> V2:
> Remove the export of running_clock
> Added #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_PSERIES and optimised the non lpar + vtb cases.
> Replaced the use of sched_clock_with local_clock it was used originally in
> the softlockup detector.
>
> Cyril Bur (2):
> Add another clock for use with the soft lockup watchdog.
> powerpc: add running_clock for powerpc to prevent spurious softlockup
> warnings
>
> arch/powerpc/kernel/time.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 +
> kernel/sched/clock.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> kernel/watchdog.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 15:58:38 +1100 Cyril Bur <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-09 at 14:34 +1100, Cyril Bur wrote:
> > When the hypervisor pauses a virtualised kernel the kernel will observe a jump
> > in timebase, this can cause spurious messages from the softlockup detector.
> >
> > Whilst these messages are harmless, they are accompanied with a stack trace
> > which causes undue concern and more problematically the stack trace in the
> > guest has nothing to do with the observed problem and can only be misleading.
> >
> > Futhermore, on POWER8 this is completely avoidable with the introduction of
> > the Virtual Time Base (VTB) register.
> >
(Top-posting repaired. Please don't).
> Could you please pick these patches up through your tree?
I shall. There were quite a few review comments last time and I *think*
they've been addressed(?). I'll cc the involved parties on the commits
- please check?