[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070208021212.a26ead6e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 02:12:12 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
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 Thu, 8 Feb 2007 10:56:12 +0100 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> yes - the -rt patch included the patch below for more than 2 years.
> (note that this one is even more finegrained)
>
> Ingo
>
> Index: linux/kernel/exit.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/exit.c
> +++ linux/kernel/exit.c
> @@ -431,8 +433,10 @@ static void close_files(struct files_str
> while (set) {
> if (set & 1) {
> struct file * file = xchg(&fdt->fd[i], NULL);
> - if (file)
> + if (file) {
> filp_close(file, files);
> + cond_resched();
> + }
> }
> i++;
> set >>= 1;
That doesn't hang like the other patch did on 2.6.17-rc3.
Very mysterious.
-
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