On 12/07/2007 06:51 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> thanks for tracking it down. Does the patch below help?
>
> oops, that should be the patch below. Otherwise the watchdog kernel
> threads will just loop around.
>
> Ingo
>
> ---
> kernel/softlockup.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/kernel/softlockup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/softlockup.c
> +++ linux/kernel/softlockup.c
> @@ -101,7 +101,11 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
>
> now = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
>
> - /* Warn about unreasonable delays: */
> + /* Wake up the high-prio watchdog task every second: */
> + if (now > (touch_timestamp + 1))
> + wake_up_process(per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu));
> +
> + /* Warn about unreasonable 10+ seconds delays: */
> if (now <= (touch_timestamp + softlockup_thresh))
> return;
>
> @@ -213,8 +217,9 @@ static int watchdog(void *__bind_cpu)
> * debug-printout triggers in softlockup_tick().
> */
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> - msleep_interruptible(10000);
> + schedule();
>
> /*
> * Only do the hung-tasks check on one CPU:
Unfortunately no change here.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
