Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:49:20 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> The softlockup watchdog is currently a nuisance in a virtual machine,
>> since the whole system could have the CPU stolen from it for a long
>> period of time. While it would be unlikely for a guest domain to be
>> denied timer interrupts for over 10s, it could happen and any softlockup
>> message would be completely spurious.
>>
>> Earlier I proposed that sched_clock() return time in unstolen
>> nanoseconds, which is how Xen and VMI currently implement it. If the
>> softlockup watchdog uses sched_clock() to measure time, it would
>> automatically ignore stolen time, and therefore only report when the
>> guest itself locked up. When running native, sched_clock() returns
>> real-time nanoseconds, so the behaviour would be unchanged.
>>
>> Note that sched_clock() used this way is inherently per-cpu, so this
>> patch makes sure that the per-processor watchdog thread initialized
>> its own timestamp.
>>
>
> This patch
> (ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc6/2.6.21-rc6-mm1/broken-out/ignore-stolen-time-in-the-softlockup-watchdog.patch)
> causes six failures in the locking self-tests, which I must say is rather
> clever of it.
>
Interesting. Which variation of sched_clock do you have in your tree at
the moment?
J
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
