[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070424141418.887d1d98.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:14:18 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.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>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:59:18 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Why does sched_clock need to disable interrupts?
>
> i concur. To me it appears not "absolutely correct" that someone
> apparently added local_irq_save/restore to sched_clock(), but "absolute
> madness". sched_clock() is _very_ performance-sensitive for the
> scheduler, do not mess with it.
Why does a local_irq_save/restore make the selftests fail??
-
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