From d7c547335fa6b0090fa09c46ea0e965ac273a27e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Don Zickus Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 17:11:51 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] lockup_detector: Separate touch_nmi_watchdog code path from touch_watchdog When I combined the nmi_watchdog (hardlockup) and softlockup code, I also combined the paths the touch_watchdog and touch_nmi_watchdog took. This may not be the best idea as pointed out by Frederic W., that the touch_watchdog case probably should not reset the hardlockup count. Therefore the patch below falls back to the previous idea of keeping the touch_nmi_watchdog a superset of the touch_watchdog case. Signed-off-by: Don Zickus Cc: Ingo Molnar Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Eric Paris Cc: Randy Dunlap LKML-Reference: <1273266711-18706-9-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker --- kernel/watchdog.c | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c index f1541b7..57b8e2c 100644 --- a/kernel/watchdog.c +++ b/kernel/watchdog.c @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ int watchdog_enabled; int __read_mostly softlockup_thresh = 60; static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, watchdog_touch_ts); +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, watchdog_nmi_touch); static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, softlockup_watchdog); static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct hrtimer, watchdog_hrtimer); static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, softlockup_touch_sync); @@ -139,6 +140,7 @@ void touch_all_softlockup_watchdogs(void) void touch_nmi_watchdog(void) { + __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = true; touch_softlockup_watchdog(); } EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_nmi_watchdog); @@ -201,10 +203,9 @@ void watchdog_overflow_callback(struct perf_event *event, int nmi, struct pt_regs *regs) { int this_cpu = smp_processor_id(); - unsigned long touch_ts = per_cpu(watchdog_touch_ts, this_cpu); - if (touch_ts == 0) { - __touch_watchdog(); + if (__get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) == true) { + __get_cpu_var(watchdog_nmi_touch) = false; return; } -- 2.7.4