[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Possible bug with the keyboard_tasklet? or is it softirq tasklet scheduling?
> I found this same problem in while trying to run down timer bh issues. 
> With out looking at the keyboard driver (since this is IMHO a tasklet
> issue), I recommend that we not set the "pending" bit
> (__cpu_raise_softirq()) if the tasklet fails because of count !=0, and
> then modify the enable macro to, if the count is now 0, do the
> __cpu_raise_softirq(). This still leaves the issue of the
> tasklet_trylock(t), which will fail in the same way, but there we are
> contending with another cpu and the rules say it can only run on one cpu
> at a time.

hmm.. interesting. I agree with you that this is a softirq tasklet
scheduling problem, not just related to the keyboard tasklet. According
to the rules you stated, the tasklet_trylock(t) is bogus and can be
removed. So what you suggest is to reschedule the tasklet, but not
raise the pending bit if the tasklet is disabled. I can live with that

I will produce and test a patch based on this tonight.

> On the other hand, why is this bothering you? You don't say what kernel
> version you are on, but the later versions push this sort of thing off
> to ksoftirqd (a kernel thread) which allows the system to boot (even if
> the thread doesn't exist yet, and it doesn't at this point).

Sorry, I am running (available from
Linux vega 2.4.16-pa5 #2 SMP Thu Nov 29 21:35:27 MST 2001 parisc unknown

Since this code is arch independent, it is very similar to the 2.4.16
kernel. (Before posting to the list, I did verify that this problem
existed in the 2.4.16 kernel, and the code paths were the same.)

The reason I tracked this problem down was, if I enabled CONFIG_SMP
(C200+ is a single processor system), the system would "hang" after the
following bootup message:

Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039

UP kernels worked fine, but SMP kernels would "hang" every time. I
still do not understand why toggling CONFIG_SMP triggered this "hang",
but it did. Looks I need to keep digging further and try to understand
why CONFIG_SMP "hangs" the system.

> The tasklet info suggests that it is ok for a tasklet to reschedule
> itself, however, in the current system, this means that it will run each
> interrupt. Surly a timer would be a better answer, except we don't have
> sub jiffie timers... yet.
> --
> George
> High-res-timers:
> Real time sched:

Thanks for your feedback George!

- Ryan
parisc-linux newbie kernel hacker.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.034 / U:2.280 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site