* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We should arrange for touch_softlockup_watchdog() to be called
> whenever touch_nmi_watchdog() is called.
the patch below adds a touch_softlockup_watchdog() call to every
touch_nmi_watchdog() call.
[A future consolidation patch should introduce a
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might
> > > be
> > > worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
> > > touch_nmi_watchdog().
> >
> > or
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might be
> > worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
> > touch_nmi_watchdog().
>
> or add touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_nmi_watchdog() instead
>
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might be
worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
touch_nmi_watchdog().
or add touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_nmi_watchdog() instead
and rename
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might
be
worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
touch_nmi_watchdog().
or add
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should arrange for touch_softlockup_watchdog() to be called
whenever touch_nmi_watchdog() is called.
the patch below adds a touch_softlockup_watchdog() call to every
touch_nmi_watchdog() call.
[A future consolidation patch should introduce a
> Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might be
> worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
> touch_nmi_watchdog().
or add touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_nmi_watchdog() instead
and rename it tickle_watchdog() overtime.
-
To unsubscribe
Badari Pulavarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am not sure if this is related to your patch. But I ran into
> BUG() with sysrq-t with your patch.
>
> Thanks,
> Badari
>
> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
>
> Modules linked in: joydev sg st floppy
Well, aio-stress seems to run better with your patch (no Oops) but
I think we still have a problem in AIO. It looks like aio-stress
is stuck (unable to kill it).
Here is the sysrq-t output:
aio-stressD 8101be224970 0 15430 1 15429
(NOTLB)
8101be21bd58
Hi,
I am not sure if this is related to your patch. But I ran into
BUG() with sysrq-t with your patch.
Thanks,
Badari
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
Modules linked in: joydev sg st floppy usbserial parport_pc lp parport
ipv6 ohci_hcd i2c_amd756 i2c_core
Your patch seems to have helped. I don't see the Oops anymore - my
tests are still running (past 1 hour - it used to panic in 10 min).
Thanks,
Badari
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 04:12, David Howells wrote:
> The attached patch makes read/write semaphores use interrupt disabling
> spinlocks, thus
The attached patch makes read/write semaphores use interrupt disabling
spinlocks, thus rendering the up functions and trylock functions available for
use in interrupt context.
I've assumed that the normal down functions must be called with interrupts
enabled (since they might schedule), and used
The attached patch makes read/write semaphores use interrupt disabling
spinlocks, thus rendering the up functions and trylock functions available for
use in interrupt context.
I've assumed that the normal down functions must be called with interrupts
enabled (since they might schedule), and used
Your patch seems to have helped. I don't see the Oops anymore - my
tests are still running (past 1 hour - it used to panic in 10 min).
Thanks,
Badari
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 04:12, David Howells wrote:
The attached patch makes read/write semaphores use interrupt disabling
spinlocks, thus
Hi,
I am not sure if this is related to your patch. But I ran into
BUG() with sysrq-t with your patch.
Thanks,
Badari
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
Modules linked in: joydev sg st floppy usbserial parport_pc lp parport
ipv6 ohci_hcd i2c_amd756 i2c_core
Well, aio-stress seems to run better with your patch (no Oops) but
I think we still have a problem in AIO. It looks like aio-stress
is stuck (unable to kill it).
Here is the sysrq-t output:
aio-stressD 8101be224970 0 15430 1 15429
(NOTLB)
8101be21bd58
Badari Pulavarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure if this is related to your patch. But I ran into
BUG() with sysrq-t with your patch.
Thanks,
Badari
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1!
Modules linked in: joydev sg st floppy usbserial
Ingo, we already have a touch_nmi_watchdog() in the sysrq code. It might be
worth adding a touch_softlockup_watchdog() wherever we have a
touch_nmi_watchdog().
or add touch_softlockup_watchdog to touch_nmi_watchdog() instead
and rename it tickle_watchdog() overtime.
-
To unsubscribe
18 matches
Mail list logo
