Dave Jones wrote:
> He wants to do this with interrupts off. on_each_cpu won't work in
> that situation.
>
I was thinking just before his big pause. But it sounds like its fairly
marginal.
> > Or patch the softlockup watchdog to add a way to temporarily disable it.
>
> Seems pretty much the
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:46:54PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
> > It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
> >
> > But it happens not often that my part is used. So I thought there is a
> > mechanism to disable or reset the
Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
> It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
>
> But it happens not often that my part is used. So I thought there is a
> mechanism to disable or reset the watchdog
> because it is a legal pause for it. And there is one
>
> Sounds like you have a fundamentally incompatible set of requirements.
Sounds so yep :)
> Why do you need the softlockup watchdog if you intend to induce soft
> lockups on purpose?
It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
But it happens not often that my part is used. So I
On 3/22/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just disable the softlockup watchdog.
Thx for your answer, but this is no option for me, as I said in my first post
:(.
Sounds like you have a fundamentally incompatible set of requirements.
Why do you need the softlockup
> Just disable the softlockup watchdog.
Thx for your answer, but this is no option for me, as I said in my first post
:(.
Thilo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 3/22/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You didn't explain _why_ you need to sleep for such a long time,
> and as you didn't give a pointer to your code, there's not
> much people can do to recommend changes other than "don't do that".
The code which is executed
> You didn't explain _why_ you need to sleep for such a long time,
> and as you didn't give a pointer to your code, there's not
> much people can do to recommend changes other than "don't do that".
The code which is executed between the local_irq_disable and enable,
is just a function call into
You didn't explain _why_ you need to sleep for such a long time,
and as you didn't give a pointer to your code, there's not
much people can do to recommend changes other than don't do that.
The code which is executed between the local_irq_disable and enable,
is just a function call into our
On 3/22/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You didn't explain _why_ you need to sleep for such a long time,
and as you didn't give a pointer to your code, there's not
much people can do to recommend changes other than don't do that.
The code which is executed between
Just disable the softlockup watchdog.
Thx for your answer, but this is no option for me, as I said in my first post
:(.
Thilo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
On 3/22/07, Cestonaro, Thilo (external)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just disable the softlockup watchdog.
Thx for your answer, but this is no option for me, as I said in my first post
:(.
Sounds like you have a fundamentally incompatible set of requirements.
Why do you need the softlockup
Sounds like you have a fundamentally incompatible set of requirements.
Sounds so yep :)
Why do you need the softlockup watchdog if you intend to induce soft
lockups on purpose?
It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
But it happens not often that my part is used. So I
Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
But it happens not often that my part is used. So I thought there is a
mechanism to disable or reset the watchdog
because it is a legal pause for it. And there is one
touch_softlockup_watchdog(),
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 03:46:54PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
It's a condition of a customer of us, so I can't change it.
But it happens not often that my part is used. So I thought there is a
mechanism to disable or reset the watchdog
Dave Jones wrote:
He wants to do this with interrupts off. on_each_cpu won't work in
that situation.
I was thinking just before his big pause. But it sounds like its fairly
marginal.
Or patch the softlockup watchdog to add a way to temporarily disable it.
Seems pretty much the only
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:06:34PM +0100, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
> Hey,
>
> my module generates this ugly softlockup dump, because all cpus are stopped
> longer then 10 secs.
> What I do is:
> [code]
> local_irq_disable();
> // my stuff which takes long and stopps all cpus
>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 05:06:34PM +0100, Cestonaro, Thilo (external) wrote:
Hey,
my module generates this ugly softlockup dump, because all cpus are stopped
longer then 10 secs.
What I do is:
[code]
local_irq_disable();
// my stuff which takes long and stopps all cpus
.
18 matches
Mail list logo
