[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOwKts_Og5CONxvP-1AF4HdCUggN4RYw1D=kW3Xv7PJ216nRDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:24:32 +0800
From: TAO HU <tghk48@...orola.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Softlockup (LOCKUP_DETECTOR) detection issue
Hi, All
While playing kernel 3.0.8 with below test code, it does NOT report
any softlockup with 60%~70% chances.
NOTE: the softlockup timeout is set to 10 seconds (i.e.
watchdog_thresh=5) in my test.
... ...
preempt_disable();
local_irq_disable();
for (i = 0; i < 20; i++)
mdelay(1000);
local_irq_enable();
preempt_enable();
... ...
However, if I remove local_irq_disable()/local_irq_enable() it will
report softlockup with no problem.
I believe it is due to that after local_irq_enable()
touch_softlockup_watchdog() is called prior softlockup timer.
touch_softlockup_watchdog() basically resets the lockup detection
process which implies that the 20-second lockup will be ignored.
I noticed that touch_softlockup_watchdog() is called in dozens of
places in kernel.
Is that a design limitation or a bug? Any way to improve the situation?
kernel/debug/debug_core.c:453: touch_softlockup_watchdog_sync();
kernel/power/hibernate.c:443: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/panic.c:153: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/time/timekeeping.c:684: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/time/tick-sched.c:149: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/time/tick-sched.c:543: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/time/tick-sched.c:596: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/time/tick-sched.c:756: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
kernel/sched_clock.c:277: touch_softlockup_watchdog();
--
Best Regards
Hu Tao
--
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