[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200609292154.30234.ak@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:54:30 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
torvalds@...l.org, stable@...nel.org,
ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 003/152] jbd: fix commit of ordered data buffers
On Friday 29 September 2006 21:18, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>
> > gad, there have been so many all-CPU-backtrace patches over the years.
> >
> > <optimistically cc's Ingo>
> >
> > Ingo, do you think that's something which we shuld have in the
> > spinlock debugging code? A trace to let us see which CPU is holding
> > that lock, and where from? I guess if the other cpu is stuck in
> > spin_lock_irqsave() then we'll get stuck delivering the IPI, so it'd
> > need to be async.
>
> used to have this in -rt for i686 and x86_64 for the NMI watchdog tick
> to print on all CPUs, in the next tick (i.e. no need to actually
> initiate an IPI) - but it was all a bit hacky [but worked]. It fell
> victim to some recent flux in that area.
You mean spinlock debugging setting a global variable and the NMI
watchdog testing that? Makes sense. I can put it on my todo list.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists