Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:24:24 -0700 | From | Jeremy Fitzhardinge <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog |
| |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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). But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes...
And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in either the self-tests or lockdep itself.
The only way I could actually extract the test code itself was to run the whole thing through cpp+indent, but it doesn't shed much light.
It's also not clear to me if there are 6 independent failures, or if they're a cascade.
J - 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/
| |