[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070102231234.GA22627@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:12:34 -0800
From: Bill Huey (hui) <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
To: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Bill Huey (hui)" <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lock stat for -rt 2.6.20-rc2-rt2 [was Re: 2.6.19-rt14 slowdown compared to 2.6.19]
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 02:51:05PM -0800, Chen, Tim C wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I'm having some problem getting this patch to run stablely. I'm
> encoutering errors like that in the trace that follow:
>
> Thanks.
> Tim
>
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008
Yes, those are the reason why I have some aggressive asserts in the code
to try track down the problem. Try this:
http://mmlinux.sourceforge.net/public/patch-2.6.20-rc2-rt2.1.lock_stat.patch
It's got some cosmestic clean up in it to make it more Linux-ish instead
of me trying to reinvent some kind of Smalltalk system in the kernel. I'm
trying to address all of Ingo's complaints about the code so it's still a
work in progress, namely the style issues (I'd like help/suggestions on
that) and assert conventions.
It might the case that the lock isn't know to the lock stats code yet.
It's got some technical overlap with lockdep in that a lock might not be
known yet and is causing a crashing.
Try that patch and report back to me what happens.
bill
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists