[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1307062574.29297.204.camel@pasglop>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 10:56:14 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: gregkh@...e.de,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: tty breakage in X (Was: tty vs workqueue oddities)
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 11:07 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:37:01 +1000
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:17 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > Hi Alan !
> >
> > Hrm... looks like Alan is innocent ... interesting tho, the culprit
> > patch looks like something he (or somebody known to understand the tty
> > code :-) should have reviewed.
>
> I did review it, and ran it and it worked beautifully on my system 8)
>
> I do wonder if it has an interaction with Linus earlier changes to queue
> flushing as I've never tested both together.
I just noticed it doesn't happen (or if it does, it recovers fast enough
to not be noticable) on an SMP machine (dual G5). However, if I boot the
same machine with maxcpus=1, the problem is back. A simple "dmesg" in
gnome terminal shows it.
However, on that much faster machine, it also recovers a lot faster. On
the powerbook, it hangs a few minutes, on the G5 it hangs a few seconds.
I don't have the bandwidth to dive into the workqueue/tty before this
week-end, I'll give it a shot next week if nobody beats me to it.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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