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    [W:0.023 / U:58.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site