From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung....@lge.com>
The get_timestamp() function is always called with current cpu, thus
using local_clock() would be more appropriate and it makes the code
shorter and cleaner IMHO.
Cc: Don Zickus <dzic...@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>
---
kernel/watchdog.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/watchdog.c b/kernel/watchdog.c
index 75a2ab3d0b02..082ca6878a3f 100644
--- a/kernel/watchdog.c
+++ b/kernel/watchdog.c
@@ -112,9 +112,9 @@ static int get_softlockup_thresh(void)
* resolution, and we don't need to waste time with a big divide when
* 2^30ns == 1.074s.
*/
-static unsigned long get_timestamp(int this_cpu)
+static unsigned long get_timestamp(void)
{
- return cpu_clock(this_cpu) >> 30LL; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
+ return local_clock() >> 30LL; /* 2^30 ~= 10^9 */
}
static void set_sample_period(void)
@@ -132,9 +132,7 @@ static void set_sample_period(void)
/* Commands for resetting the watchdog */
static void __touch_watchdog(void)
{
- int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
-
- __this_cpu_write(watchdog_touch_ts, get_timestamp(this_cpu));
+ __this_cpu_write(watchdog_touch_ts, get_timestamp());
}
void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
@@ -195,7 +193,7 @@ static int is_hardlockup(void)
static int is_softlockup(unsigned long touch_ts)
{
- unsigned long now = get_timestamp(smp_processor_id());
+ unsigned long now = get_timestamp();
/* Warn about unreasonable delays: */
if (time_after(now, touch_ts + get_softlockup_thresh()))
--
1.7.11.7
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
