[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <462E6778.7070305@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:24:24 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@...ibm.com>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
Chris Lalancette <clalance@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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). But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup
> during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes...
And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely
correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in either the self-tests
or lockdep itself.
The only way I could actually extract the test code itself was to run
the whole thing through cpp+indent, but it doesn't shed much light.
It's also not clear to me if there are 6 independent failures, or if
they're a cascade.
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