On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:47:31PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > Softlockup report means that there is no progress on the given CPU. It > might be a "short" affair where the system gets recovered. But often > the system stops being responsive and need to get rebooted. > > The softlockup might be root of the problems or just a symptom. It might > be a deadlock, livelock, or often repeated state. > > Regular reports help to distinguish different situations. Fortunately, > the watchdog is finally able to show correct information how long > softlockup_fn() was not scheduled. > > Report before this patch: > > [ 320.248948] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [cat:4916] > > And after this patch: > > [ 480.372418] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 26s! [cat:4943] > [ 508.372359] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 52s! [cat:4943] > [ 548.372359] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 89s! [cat:4943] > [ 576.372351] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 115s! [cat:4943] > > Note that the horrible code never really worked before the accounting > was fixed. The last working timestamp was regularly lost by the many > touch*watchdog() calls.
So what's the point of patch 1? Just confusing people?
