Re: [PATCH 1/3] softlockup: add sched_clock_tick() to avoid kernelwarning on kgdb resume

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/