| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:16:21 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Lukasz Trabinski <lukasz@...siz.edu.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Solarz-Niesluchowski <solarz@...siz.edu.pl>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: 2.6.20 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! On Thursday 08 February 2007 09:06, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > > The softlock detector has a long history of false positives and > > precious few true positives, in my experience. > > hm, not so the latest & lamest in my experience. The commit that made it > quite robust was 6687a97d4041f996f725902d2990e5de6ef5cbe5, as of March > 2006, and first showed up in 2.6.17. (OTOH, since the merge of lockdep > the main source of soft lockups in the field has been quite severely > reduced. Nevertheless it's still good to have it around, occasionally > there happen other types of soft lockups too, in open-coded loops, etc.) This reminds me the current problem in close_files() code, where we trigger soft lockup quite regularly. Is there any chance/interest we can solve the issue Andrew had with this patch ? http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/5/2/273 Thank you Eric - 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