Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:14:27 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog |
| |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote: > > Well, it _is_ mysterious. > > > > Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and > > include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding, Ingo. > > > > OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore > from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would > really be magic).
erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair shouldn't be affecting anything?
> But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes...
To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with anything?
<feels dumb> - 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/
| |