Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 May 2010 16:34:44 +0200 | From | Piotr Hosowicz <> | Subject | Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: icedove-bin/5449 |
| |
On 25.05.2010 16:13, Piotr Hosowicz wrote: > On 25.05.2010 12:29, Piotr Hosowicz wrote: >> On 25.05.2010 12:05, Piotr Hosowicz wrote: >>> On 25.05.2010 12:00, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>>> On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 11:57 +0200, Piotr Hosowicz wrote: >>>>> On 25.05.2010 11:43, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This doesnt fix the whole issue. cpu_clock() is local, while the >>>>>> measurements >>>>>> done in the blk code are global ... >>>>>> >>>>>> While the warning is fixed this way, the far more serious issue is >>>>>> still >>>>>> there: time can go backwards if two points of time measurement are on >>>>>> different CPUs and can mess up the statistics with negative values, >>>>>> etc... >>>>> >>>>> How serious is this? Can it damage my data? I ask because the >>>>> machine is >>>>> my private computer, not any test machine. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure, since I didn't really look what they use the timestamps >>>> for, but a guess would say your data is safe, it might schedule the io >>>> funny, but it should not compromise integrity. At best its used purely >>>> for statistics and not even behaviour is affected. >>> >>> Thanks. >> >> Seems to work like a charm. > > Not exactly. I looked into the syslog. I's much better, but I rebooted > to single user mode to rebuild nvidia driver (new beta version) and I > see same error (BUG ... code: ???) on shuting down, mentioning sync, > umount and finally shutdown.
Sorry, reversed order - shutdown, umount, finally sync.
-- - Czy jest cukier w kostkach ? - Nie ma. - A jakas inna tania bombonierka? Dla tesciowej. NP: Chickenfoot - Soap On A Rope NB: 2.6.34-20100524-1752-patched
| |