Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:07:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net,
       Dongdong Deng <Dongdong.Deng@windriver.com>, peterz@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernel
 warning on kgdb resume
Message-ID: <20100129080706.GJ14636@elte.hu>
References: <1264631124-4837-1-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com>
 <1264631124-4837-2-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1264631124-4837-2-git-send-email-jason.wessel@windriver.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 991
Lines: 31


* Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com> wrote:

> @@ -118,6 +125,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (touch_ts == 0) {
> +		if (unlikely(per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu))) {
> +			/*
> +			 * If the time stamp was touched atomically
> +			 * make sure the scheduler tick is up to date.
> +			 */
> +			per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu) = false;
> +			sched_clock_tick();
> +		}
>  		__touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>  		return;

Shouldnt just all of touch_softlockup_watchdog() gain this new 
sched_clock_tick() call, instead of doing this ugly flaggery? Or would that 
lock up or misbehave in other ways in some cases?

That would also make the patch much simpler i guess, as we'd only have the 
chunk above.

	Ingo
--
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/