Hi David,
David Miller schrieb am Montag, 26. Februar 2007 um 10:12:19 -0800:
> From: "J.J.Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 + (GMT)
>
> > Hi Andrew
> >
> > > The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
> > > remove_wait_queue() would be
From: Joerg Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:22:39 +0100
> Can you just tell me if it's sufficient to check for a return value >0
> of wait_event_interruptible_timeout? I was not sure so I extended the
> check to
> if ((val != -ERESTARTSYS) && (val > 0))
I changed the
From: "J.J.Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 + (GMT)
> Hi Andrew
>
> > The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
> > remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
> > corruption.
> >
> > msleep_interruptible() certainly
From: J.J.Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 + (GMT)
Hi Andrew
The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
corruption.
msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't
From: Joerg Friedrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 06:22:39 +0100
Can you just tell me if it's sufficient to check for a return value 0
of wait_event_interruptible_timeout? I was not sure so I extended the
check to
if ((val != -ERESTARTSYS) (val 0))
I changed the check to
Hi David,
David Miller schrieb am Montag, 26. Februar 2007 um 10:12:19 -0800:
From: J.J.Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 + (GMT)
Hi Andrew
The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it
Hi Andrew
The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
corruption.
msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't consume CPU like that. Do we
know where the CPU time is being spent? The output of:
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [2007-02-25 4:47 -0800]:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:27:12 + "J.J. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
> >
> > http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
> The code around there looks
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:27:12 + "J.J. Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
>
> summary :
>
> modprobe bbc
>
> runs kenvctrld which uses 100% of a CPU for 5 seconds,
>
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:27:12 + J.J. Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all
I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
summary :
modprobe bbc
runs kenvctrld which uses 100% of a CPU for 5 seconds,
then 0% for 5
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED], [2007-02-25 4:47 -0800]:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:27:12 + J.J. Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
The code around there looks relatively
Hi Andrew
The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that
remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack
corruption.
msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't consume CPU like that. Do we
know where the CPU time is being spent? The output of:
Hi all
I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
summary :
modprobe bbc
runs kenvctrld which uses 100% of a CPU for 5 seconds,
then 0% for 5 seconds, then 100% .. and so on. The author
cited above suggests removing the line
Hi all
I got bitten by this problem on sparc64 (a blade 1000)
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=297474
summary :
modprobe bbc
runs kenvctrld which uses 100% of a CPU for 5 seconds,
then 0% for 5 seconds, then 100% .. and so on. The author
cited above suggests removing the line
14 matches
Mail list logo
