Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Mon, 21 May 2007 21:58:55 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:16 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > plain text document attachment > (i386-hpet-check-if-the-counter-works.patch) > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > --------------------- > > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Some systems have a HPET which is not incrementing, which leads to a > complete hang. Detect it during HPET setup. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> > --- > [chrisw: Why is this not upstream yet?]
Dunno. There is another one missing:
-------------------------------> Subject: NOHZ: Rate limit the local softirq pending warning output
The warning in the NOHZ code, which triggers when a CPU goes idle with softirqs pending can fill up the logs quite quickly. Rate limit the output until we found the root cause of that problem.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Index: linux-2.6.21/kernel/time/tick-sched.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.21.orig/kernel/time/tick-sched.c +++ linux-2.6.21/kernel/time/tick-sched.c @@ -167,9 +167,15 @@ void tick_nohz_stop_sched_tick(void) goto end; cpu = smp_processor_id(); - if (unlikely(local_softirq_pending())) - printk(KERN_ERR "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending %02x\n", - local_softirq_pending()); + if (unlikely(local_softirq_pending())) { + static int ratelimit; + + if (ratelimit < 10) { + printk(KERN_ERR "NOHZ: local_softirq_pending %02x\n", + local_softirq_pending()); + ratelimit++; + } + } now = ktime_get(); /*
- 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/
| |