Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:45:14 -0800 (PST) | From | Bradley Chapman <> | Subject | Re: What exactly are the issues with 2.6.0-test10 preempt? |
| |
Mr. Torvalds,
--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Bradley Chapman wrote: > > > > What sort of information would you like me to provide, sir? The bug you're > > discussing here isn't affecting me; CONFIG_PREEMPT has been solid on > 2.6.0-test10. > > This is on a Gateway 600S laptop with a P4-M 2Ghz processor and an i845 > Brookdale > > chipset. > > Basically, there's something strange going on, which _seems_ to be memory > corruption, and seems to correlate reasonable well (but not 100%) with > CONFIG_PREEMPT.
Ah, I see. I thought there was a definite issue with a certain subsystem that just hadn't been fixed yet when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> > It's actually unlikely to be preemption itself that is broken: it's much > more likely that some driver or other subsystem is broken, and preempt is > just better at triggering it by making some race conditions much easier to > see due to bigger windows for them to happen. > > The problem is finding enough of a pattern to the reports to make sense of > what seems to be the common thread. A lot of people use preemption without > any trouble.
Indeed. Do the same subsystems usually show the memory corruption issue with preempt active, or does it just pop up all over the place, unpredictably?
> > Linus
Brad
=====
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ - 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/
| |