lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: How how latent should non-preemptive scheduling be?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> well, since they went away after you enabled CONFIG_PREEMPT=y, they are
>>> definitely in-kernel latencies, not any external SMM latencies.
>>>
>>> I.e. they are inherently fixable. Could you enable:
>>>
>>> CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE=y
>>> CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD=y
>>>
>>> that should make the traces a lot more verbose - every kernel function
>>> executed in the latency path will be logged. That way we'll be able to
>>> say which one takes that long.
>> I do not appear to have the CONFIG_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD option in
>> 2.6.27rc7. Is it an option that is only in -tip ?
>
> yeah - it's a new ftrace feature queued up for v2.6.28.

I've been struggling to boot -tip/master - currently it blows up just
after printing SLUB information saying:

BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00000004
IP: [<c0120078>] account_system_time+0x48/0x120
*pde = 00000000
Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted
Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT
--
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-23 18:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans