* Alistair John Strachan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Interesting. They're both exactly 10001 jiffies apart.
>
> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! -283805--293806
yes, that's the 10 second softlockup timeout.
does the patch below help? We initialized the timestamps to 0, but with
jiffies starting out negative, that means a ~5 minutes gap until we
first reach a value of 0. That would explain the messages. The only
thing it doesnt explain, why did this only trigger on your box?
Ingo
Index: linux/kernel/softlockup.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ linux/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -16,9 +16,9 @@
static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(print_lock);
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timeout) = 0;
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timestamp) = 0;
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp) = 0;
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timeout) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, timestamp) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
+static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp) = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task);
static int did_panic = 0;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |