Re: [stable] Soft lockups since stable kernel upgrade to 2.6.23.8

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

Greg KH wrote:
> Can you try applying the patch below to see if that solves the problem
> for you?
>   

I don't think this patch will help; it only has cosmetic changes in
addition to the original message printing fix.  I think it also needs
change a3b13c23f186ecb57204580cc1f2dbe9c284953a:

diff -r 79f0ea1e0e70 -r 06f060ab58aa kernel/softlockup.c
--- a/kernel/softlockup.c	Tue Oct 09 21:00:40 2007 +0000
+++ b/kernel/softlockup.c	Wed Oct 17 08:42:46 2007 -0700
@@ -40,14 +40,16 @@ static struct notifier_block panic_block
  * resolution, and we don't need to waste time with a big divide when
  * 2^30ns == 1.074s.
  */
-static unsigned long get_timestamp(void)
+static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu)
 {
-	return sched_clock() >> 30;  /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
+	return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30;  /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
 }
 
 void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
 {
-	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp();
+	int this_cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+
+	__raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(touch_softlockup_watchdog);
 
@@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ void softlockup_tick(void)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	now = get_timestamp();
+	now = get_timestamp(this_cpu);
 
 	/* Wake up the high-prio watchdog task every second: */
 	if (now > (touch_timestamp + 1))


    J