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    [W:0.043 / U:29.784 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site