-
John Stultz authored
It was suggested that the underflow/overflow protection should probably throw some sort of warning out, rather than just silently fixing the issue. So this patch adds some warnings here. The flag variables used are not protected by locks, but since we can't print from the reading functions, just being able to say we saw an issue in the update interval is useful enough, and can be slightly racy without real consequence. The big complication is that we're only under a read seqlock, so the data could shift under us during our calculation to see if there was a problem. This patch avoids this issue by nesting another seqlock which allows us to snapshot the just required values atomically. So we shouldn't see false positives. I also added some basic rate-limiting here, since on one build machine w/ skewed TSCs it was fairly noisy at bootup. Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> Cc: Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1426133800-29329-8-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.orgSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
4ca22c26