On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:40:14PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > Whoah, that's damn weird. I have no idea what's going on. > I'm sorry. Does someone else have an idea? Otherwise I think > we must drop that patch and live with the high periodic work latency. > > I really don't see how this is still possible to race. Even on UP(!). > Jason, I added an assertion that should be able to catch > periodic work vs IRQ handler races. You did not see it trigger by chance?
Everything that looked slightly suspicious was in my email. Do you have a string for me to grep for? > Besides that, this seems like a race of periodic work against > the tasklet. But I really don't see how this is possible. I really don't know. It's definitely your patch though. Just to double-check, I compiled a 2.6.17-rc5-git5 kernel with an identical .config (SMP/PREEMPT + kernel debugging), but neither of your experimental patches. I set it up under the same iperf + disk activity load. It's up to 37 million bcm43xx interrupts right now with no trouble at all. Maybe there's something about preempt that violates one of your assumptions? I know that it's supposed to be good at triggering races. Jason _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
