Re: [patch] fix the softlockup watchdog to actually work

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> no, the return value after idling can be completely random on some 
> boxes, on a 64-bit scale - triggering the softlockup watchdog randomly. 
> (some boxes return random TSC values, etc.) Again, it's fine for the 
> scheduler's purpose, that's why i named it sched_clock().
>
> the proper clocksource use within the kernel is ktime_get() [or 
> ktime_get_ts()]. Do not abuse sched_clock() for such things.

Well, my observation is that both softlockup and the scheduler really
want to measure unstolen time, so it seemed to me that sched_clock was a
nice common place to implement that, rather than implementing a whole
new time interface.  At the time that seemed OK, and nobody had any
objections.

But it's a bit beside the point unless it does turn out to be making
Andrew's Vaio sad.

    J