[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070323122739.GA5178@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:27:39 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
Mariusz Kozlowski <m.kozlowski@...land.pl>,
Oliver Pinter <oliver.pntr@...il.com>,
Sid Boyce <g3vbv@...eyonder.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [1/6] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> [ Ok, I think it's those timers again...
agreed - this seems to be a genuine CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y bug. (which
has probably not been fixed since -rc4 either, we have no bugfix in this
area that could explain the expires_next==KTIME_MAX timer state visible
in SysRq-Q.)
there seems to be a trend in the reports: HT P4 CPUs.
> Ingo: let me just state how *happy* I am that I told you off when
> you wanted to merge the hires timers and NO_HZ before 2.6.20 because
> they were "stable". You were wrong, and 2.6.20 is at least in
> reasonable shape. [...]
yes - i was quite wrong pushing it so hard. (and doubly so given your
stated focus of making v2.6.20 a quiet release) Sorry :-/
> [...] Now we just need to make sure that 2.6.21 will be too.. ]
yeah - we are working hard on it.
Ingo
-
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