Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Jul 25 2007 - 05:01:09 EST


On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:52:04 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > apparently the functionality of the soft lockup watchdog was never
> > > actually tested with that patch applied ...
> > >
> > > [this is -stable material too.]
> >
> > Still isn't working. I'm getting random meaningless softlockup
> > trippings coming out for no apparent reason.
>
> hm, you still havent applied the other 4 patches i sent:
>
> softlockup-fix.patch
>
> softlockup-add-irq-regs-h.patch
> softlockup-better-printout.patch
> softlockup-cleanups.patch
> softlockup-use-cpu-clock.patch
>
> they are all necessary.

I think I have. Seems that someone hasn't been naming their patches
consistently (which is quite irksome). I have:

fix-the-softlockup-watchdog-to-actually-work.patch
softlockup-make-asm-irq_regsh-available-on-every-platform.patch
softlockup-improve-debug-output.patch
softlockup-watchdog-style-cleanups.patch
softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter.patch
softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter-fix.patch

> softlockup-use-cpu-clock.patch could easily solve the present problem
> you have: as i pointed it out it is _wrong_ to use sched_clock(),
> because sched_clock() is not a reliable clocksource. Especially on your
> VAIO.

It fails with them all applied too:

fix-leak-on-proc-lockdep_stats.patch OK
fix-the-softlockup-watchdog-to-actually-work.patch BAD
softlockup-make-asm-irq_regsh-available-on-every-platform.patch
softlockup-improve-debug-output.patch BAD
softlockup-watchdog-style-cleanups.patch
softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter.patch
softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter-fix.patch BAD

-
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/