Messages in this thread |  | | | From | V13 <> | | Subject | Re: 2.6.8-rc3-mm2 | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:52:20 +0300 |
| |
On Tuesday 10 August 2004 14:53, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:00:51AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >>> It deadlocks with or without the fork_idle() call being via keventd; > >>> the printk change is what makes the difference. =( > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:38:31AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >> Okay, it deadlocks with both mdelay(1000) and yield() in place of the > >> printk(). Trying manual calls to schedule() and local_irq_enable() next. > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 03:02:34AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > Replacing the printk() with either of the following two things didn't > > work: (a) yield(); > > (b) local_irq_enable(); set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); schedule(); > > Okay, these also failed as replacements for printk(): > (c) local_irq_enable(); > (d) local_irq_enable(); set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > schedule(); mdelay(1000); > (e) local_irq_enable(); set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); > for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) mdelay(1); > set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); schedule();
Why don't you create a copy of printk() and start commenting out lines in there?
> -- wli <<V13>> - 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/
|  |