On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:05:33PM +0000, David wrote:
quoted text
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 07:21:35PM +0100, Javier Kohen wrote:
> >   
> >> I upgraded today from 2.6.23 to 2.6.23.8 and started seeing a lot of
> >> these in the logs:
> >>     
> >
> > Can you see if the problem showed up in 2.6.23.2 or .3 to help narrow
> > this down?
> >   
> This is the culprit, reverting fixes the issue.
> 
> Cheers
> David
> 
> --- 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)) {
> 


Great, thanks for tracking this down.

Ingo, this corrisponds to changeset
a115d5caca1a2905ba7a32b408a6042b20179aaa in mainline.  Is that patch
incorrect?  Should this patch in the -stable tree be reverted?

thanks,

greg k-h
-
unsubscribe notice
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/