Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:25:02 -0800 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | [patch 26/29] softlockup: use cpu_clock() instead of sched_clock() |
| |
2.6.23-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
------------------ From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
patch a3b13c23f186ecb57204580cc1f2dbe9c284953a in mainline.
sched_clock() is not a reliable time-source, use cpu_clock() instead.
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
--- kernel/softlockup.c | 10 ++++++---- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c @@ -43,14 +43,16 @@ static struct notifier_block panic_block * resolution, and we don't need to waste time with a big divide when * 2^30ns == 1.074s. */ -static unsigned long get_timestamp(void) +static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu) { - return sched_clock() >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */ + return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */ } void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void) { - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp(); + int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id(); + + __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp(this_cpu); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog); @@ -96,7 +98,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void) return; } - now = get_timestamp(); + now = get_timestamp(this_cpu); /* Wake up the high-prio watchdog task every second: */ if (now > (touch_timestamp + 1)) -- - 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/
| |