> > > * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > how about the patch below? Boot-tested on 32-bit. As a side-effect
> > > > this change also removes the 255 CPUs limit from the 32-bit kernel.
> > >
> > > boot-tested on 64-bit too now.
> >
> > Strange, I can't even get past the compile stage ;)
> >
> > CC kernel/spinlock.o
> > {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> > {standard input}:207: Error: backward ref to unknown label "4:"
>
> oh, sorry - i built it with !PREEMPT, which doesnt make use of the flags
> thing. I fixed the build and have cleaned up and simplified that code
> some more - does the patch below work for you? (it does for me on both
> 32-bit and 64-bit)
Thanks. The patch boots, and... doesn't solve the bug. Weird.
CPU bug? I've upgraded the BIOS not such a long time ago.
I guess now we know what the problem is, it would be pretty easy to
create some test code, that uses two threads, one of which loops in
lock/unlock/rep_nop and the other that tries to acquire the lock and
measures latency.
Should I try to do that?
Thanks,
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
