[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070424131427.940d461e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:14:27 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.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
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Well, it _is_ mysterious.
> >
> > Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and
> > include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding, Ingo.
> >
>
> OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore
> from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would
> really be magic).
erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair
shouldn't be affecting anything?
> But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup
> during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes...
To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with
anything?
<feels dumb>
-
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