Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:14:18 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog |
| |
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:59:18 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Why does sched_clock need to disable interrupts? > > i concur. To me it appears not "absolutely correct" that someone > apparently added local_irq_save/restore to sched_clock(), but "absolute > madness". sched_clock() is _very_ performance-sensitive for the > scheduler, do not mess with it.
Why does a local_irq_save/restore make the selftests fail?? - 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/
| |