[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <462E4969.6070802@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:16:09 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@...hat.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I said that because the damn thing went away when I was hunting it down
> because I lost the config and was unable to remember the right combination
> of debug settings. Fortunately it later came back so I took care to
> preserve the config.
>
sched_clock doesn't *do* anything except flap interrupts. Oh, wait, have
you got Andi's bugfixed version of the sched_clock patch? The first
version did a local_save_flags rather than a local_irq_save.
>> Hm, is it caused by using sched_clock() to generate the printk
>> timestamps while generating the lock test output?
>>
>
> Conceivably. What does that locking API test do?
>
Didn't make a difference here. Building your config now.
> I was using printk timestamps and netconsole at the time.
>
Ah, great, now you're going to make me setup netconsole...
J
-
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