Re: [PATCH] softlockup: stop spurious softlockup messages due to overflow

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le lundi 15 mars 2010 ?? 14:01 +0000, Colin Ian King a ??crit :
> > Ensure additions on touch_ts do not overflow.  This can occur when
> > the top 32 bits of the TSC reach 0xffffffff causing additions to
> > touch_ts to overflow and this in turn generates spurious softlockup
> > warnings.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/softlockup.c |    6 +++---
> >  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/softlockup.c b/kernel/softlockup.c
> > index 0d4c789..90d9aa0 100644
> > --- a/kernel/softlockup.c
> > +++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
> > @@ -111,10 +111,10 @@ int proc_dosoftlockup_thresh(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> >  void softlockup_tick(void)
> >  {
> >  	int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > -	unsigned long touch_ts = per_cpu(softlockup_touch_ts, this_cpu);
> > +	unsigned long long touch_ts = per_cpu(softlockup_touch_ts, this_cpu);
> >  	unsigned long print_ts;
> >  	struct pt_regs *regs = get_irq_regs();
> > -	unsigned long now;
> > +	unsigned long long now;
> >  
> >  	/* Is detection switched off? */
> >  	if (!per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, this_cpu) || softlockup_thresh <= 0) {
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
> >  	per_cpu(softlockup_print_ts, this_cpu) = touch_ts;
> >  
> >  	spin_lock(&print_lock);
> > -	printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %lus! [%s:%d]\n",
> > +	printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: soft lockup - CPU#%d stuck for %llus! [%s:%d]\n",
> >  			this_cpu, now - touch_ts,
> >  			current->comm, task_pid_nr(current));
> >  	print_modules();
> 
> This looks wrong, touch_ts is a long, not a long long.

Could be increased to long long - but that's probably overkill as the touch_ts 
is in seconds, so the scope of comparisons should never truly get even close 
to ~2^31.

> You probably want to change the comparisons instead.
> 
> if (now > touch_ts + softlockup_thresh/2)
> 	wake_up_process(per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, this_cpu));
> if (now <= (touch_ts + softlockup_thresh))
> 	return;
> 	
> ->
> 
> if ((long)(now - touch_ts) > softlockup_thresh/2)
> 	wake_up_process(per_cpu(softlockup_watchdog, this_cpu));
> if ((long)(now - touch_ts) <= softlockup_thresh))
> 	return;
> 
> Or use standard time_after()/time_before() macros.

Yeah, time_after/before would work better i suspect.

Thanks,

	Ingo