[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070225044754.1d849a8d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 04:47:54 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "J.J. Green" <j.j.green@...ffield.ac.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sparc64 / bbc_i2c.c
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:27:12 +0000 "J.J. Green" <j.j.green@...ffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
>
> summary :
>
> modprobe bbc
>
> runs kenvctrld which uses 100% of a CPU for 5 seconds,
> then 0% for 5 seconds, then 100% .. and so on. The author
> cited above suggests removing the line
>
> remove_wait_queue(&bp->wq, &wait);
>
> in the function
>
> static int wait_for_pin(struct bbc_i2c_bus *bp, u8 *status)
>
> Is there a better way?
>
> I can test patches if that would be helpful.
>
The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
corruption.
msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't consume CPU like that. Do we
know where the CPU time is being spent? The output of:
readprofile -r
sleep 10
readprofile -n -v -m /boot/System.map | sort -n -k 3 | tail -40
would tell us.
-
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