lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-04-24 22:19    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans