[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1011102327050.2900@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:28:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve clocksource unstable warning
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> When the system goes out to lunch for a long time, the clocksource
> watchdog might get false positives. Clarify the warning so that
> people stop blaming their system freezes on the timing code.
>
> This change was Thomas Gleixner's suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
> ---
> I've only compile-tested on 2.6.36, but it applies cleanly to Linus' tree
> and it's rather trivial.
>
> kernel/time/clocksource.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> index c18d7ef..5b30aa2 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> @@ -215,8 +215,10 @@ static void __clocksource_unstable(struct clocksource *cs)
>
> static void clocksource_unstable(struct clocksource *cs, int64_t delta)
> {
> - printk(KERN_WARNING "Clocksource %s unstable (delta = %Ld ns)\n",
> - cs->name, delta);
> + printk(KERN_WARNING "Clocksource %s unstable (delta = %Ld ns)%s\n",
> + cs->name, delta,
> + delta < -5000000000LL ?
I'm ok with that change, but we should not hard code the
delta. Instead we should look at the wrap around time of the
clocksource which we use for reference.
> + " or your system lagged for other reasons" : "");
> __clocksource_unstable(cs);
> }
Thanks,
tglx
--
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