mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] softlockup: fix watchdog task wakeup frequency
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:12:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <871w2e6ptn.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080701061146.GE14658@elte.hu> (Ingo Molnar's message of "Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:11:46 +0200")

Hi Ingo,

Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:

> * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> writes:
>> 
>> > * Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > +	/*
>> >> > +	 * Wake up the high-prio watchdog task twice per
>> >> > +	 * threshold timespan.
>> >> > +	 */
>> >> > +	if (now > touch_timestamp + softlockup_thresh/2)
>> >> >  		wake_up_process(per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu));
>> >> 
>> >> That defeats patch 1/3 and I think it can be dropped (#1).
>> >
>> > applied this updated patch to tip/core/softlockup. #3 didnt apply - 
>> > could you send a delta patch against tip/core/softlockup please? You can 
>> > pick it up via:
>> >
>> >   http://people.redhat.com/mingo/tip.git/README
>> >
>> > do:
>> >
>> >   git-checkout -b core/softlockup tip/core/softlockup
>> >
>> > to check it out.
>> 
>> Uhm, I see this patch is already in.  Misunderstanding or did you fix 
>> it up yourself?
>
> i applied and tested everything that would apply (modulo trivial 
> conflict resolution) - but not all of your patches applied so if there's 
> still anything missing please send a delta patch against this branch. 
> (or against tip/master, which too has all these changes included)

#1 is crap, #3 is in the tree and here is #2 against tip/core/softlockup:

--
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
Subject: softlockup: sanitize timestamp comparison

The print_timestamp can never be bigger than the touch_timestamp, at
maximum it can be equal.  And if it is, the second check for
touch_timestamp + 1 bigger print_timestamp is always true, too.

The check for equality is sufficient as we proceed in one-second-steps
and are at least one second away from the last print-out if we have
another timestamp.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
---
 kernel/softlockup.c |    5 +----
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/softlockup.c b/kernel/softlockup.c
index d53ab70..7bd8d1a 100644
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -116,11 +116,8 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 	print_timestamp = per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu);
 
 	/* report at most once a second */
-	if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
-			print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
-			did_panic) {
+	if (print_timestamp == touch_timestamp || did_panic)
 		return;
-	}
 
 	/* do not print during early bootup: */
 	if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) {

  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-01  7:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-27  0:04 [PATCH 0/3] softlockup fixlets Johannes Weiner
2008-06-27  0:04 ` [PATCH 1/3] softlockup: only reset timestamp from NMI code Johannes Weiner
2008-06-27  0:04 ` [PATCH 2/3] softlockup: sanitize print-out limit checks Johannes Weiner
2008-06-27  0:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] softlockup: fix watchdog task wakeup frequency Johannes Weiner
2008-06-27 12:03   ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-27 12:33     ` Johannes Weiner
2008-06-27 12:43       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-27 13:07         ` Johannes Weiner
2008-06-28  0:45           ` Johannes Weiner
2008-06-30 13:08             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-01  5:40               ` Johannes Weiner
2008-07-01  6:11                 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-01  7:12                   ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2008-07-01  7:22                     ` Ingo Molnar

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=871w2e6ptn.fsf@skyscraper.fehenstaub.lan \
    --to=hannes@saeurebad.de \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome