[patch 09/13] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

patch a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline.

this Xen related commit:

   commit 966812dc98e6a7fcdf759cbfa0efab77500a8868
   Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
   Date:   Tue May 8 00:28:02 2007 -0700

       Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

broke the softlockup watchdog to never report any lockups. (!)

print_timestamp defaults to 0, this makes the following condition
always true:

	if (print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1) ||

and we'll in essence never report soft lockups.

apparently the functionality of the soft lockup watchdog was never
actually tested with that patch applied ...

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

---
 kernel/softlockup.c |    7 ++++---
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/softlockup.c
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -80,10 +80,11 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 	print_timestamp = per_cpu(print_timestamp, this_cpu);
 
 	/* report at most once a second */
-	if (print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1) ||
-		did_panic ||
-			!per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu))
+	if ((print_timestamp >= touch_timestamp &&
+			print_timestamp < (touch_timestamp + 1)) ||
+			did_panic || !per_cpu(watchdog_task, this_cpu)) {
 		return;
+	}
 
 	/* do not print during early bootup: */
 	if (unlikely(system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)) {

-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/