[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4608C3F5.1030106@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:12:53 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@...hat.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge a écrit :
>
>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, touch_timestamp);
>
> ...
>
>> void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
>> {
>> - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = jiffies;
>> + __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = sched_clock();
>> }
>
> Not very clear if this is safe on 32bit, since this is not anymore
> atomic.
Hm, good point. Don't think it matters very much. These values are
per-cpu, and if an interrupt happens between the word updates and the
intermediate values causes a timeout, then it was pretty marginal
anyway. I guess the worst case is if the low-word gets written first,
and it goes from a high value to low, then it could be sampled as if
time had gone back by up to ~4 seconds.
I'll give it another look.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists