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 13:24:24 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:

> 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.

It's weird. And I don't think the locking selftest code calls
sched_clock() (or any other time-related thing) at all, does it?

> 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.

Oh well. I'll restore the patches and when people hit problems we can
blame Ingo!

-
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 22:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site