lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: CONFIG_PREEMPT causes corruption of application's FPU stack
Date
On Sonntag, 1. Juni 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> j.mell@t-online.de writes:
> > or it is restored more than
> > once. Please keep in mind, that I am always running two Einstein
> > processes simultaneously on my two cores!
> > I am willing to do further testing of this problem if someone can give
> > me a hint how to continue.
>
> My bet would have been actually on
> aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012 because it does some nasty
> things (enable interrupts in the middle of __switch_to).
>
> I looked through the old patchkit and couldn't find any specific
> PREEMPT problems. All code it changes should run with preempt_off
>
> You could verify with sticking WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()) into
> all the places acc207616a91a413a50fdd8847a747c4a7324167
> changes (__unlazy_fpu, math_state_restore) and see if that triggers
> anywhere.

No, that did not trigger. I put the WARN_ON_ONCE into process.c, traps.c
and also into the __unlazy_fpu macro in i387.h but I got no messages
anywhere (dmesg, /var/log/messages, /var/log/warn) when the trap #8
occurred.
Meanwhile I am also running the tests on another machine to make sure it is
not a hardware-related problem.

Any new ideas are welcome!

Meanwhile I will go back to 2.6.20 and revert
aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012. Maybe I got on a wrong track...

Bye,
Jürgen
--
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: 2008-06-01 18:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans