* Jason Wessel <jason.wes...@windriver.com> wrote:
> @@ -118,6 +125,14 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
> }
>
> if (touch_ts == 0) {
> + if (unlikely(per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu))) {
> + /*
> + * If the time stamp was touched atomically
> + * make sure the scheduler tick is up to date.
> + */
> + per_cpu(softlock_touch_sync, this_cpu) = false;
> + sched_clock_tick();
> + }
> __touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> return;
Shouldnt just all of touch_softlockup_watchdog() gain this new
sched_clock_tick() call, instead of doing this ugly flaggery? Or would that
lock up or misbehave in other ways in some cases?
That would also make the patch much simpler i guess, as we'd only have the
chunk above.
Ingo
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation
Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business
Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts
Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
