Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

2007-04-24 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andrew Morton wrote: On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Well, it _is_ mysterious. Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding,

Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

2007-04-24 Thread Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Andrew Morton wrote: It's weird. And I don't think the locking selftest code calls sched_clock() (or any other time-related thing) at all, does it? I guess it ends up going through the scheduler, which does use it. But... shrug J ___

Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

2007-04-24 Thread Daniel Walker
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 22:59 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Daniel Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in

Re: [PATCH 04/25] xen: Add XEN config options

2007-04-24 Thread Andi Kleen
Shouldn't this be after the change that adds arch/i386/xen/Kconfig? Otherwise you break bisects It should be OK. The series should build and run at each patch (though I have to admit I haven't tested this). In general I've been adding config options for each feature as the

Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

2007-04-24 Thread Andi Kleen
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 22:52:27 Daniel Walker wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in either the self-tests or lockdep itself. Why

Re: [PATCH 06/25] xen: Core Xen implementation

2007-04-24 Thread Andi Kleen
On Monday 23 April 2007 23:56:44 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Core Xen Implementation This patch is a rollup of all the core pieces of the Xen implementation, including booting, memory management, interrupts, time and so on. The patch is definitely too big. +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN +/* Xen only

Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

2007-04-24 Thread Daniel Walker
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 23:20 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: On Tuesday 24 April 2007 22:52:27 Daniel Walker wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely correct, so I think it must be triggering a

Re: SMP lockup in virtualized environment

2007-04-24 Thread Chris Snook
LAPLACE Cyprien wrote: An example: in kernel/pid.c:alloc_pid(), if one of the guest CPUs is descheduled when holding the pidmap_lock, what happens to the other guest CPUs who want to alloc/free pids ? Are they blocked too ? Yup. This is where it's really nice to have directed yields, where

Opening bell message.

2007-04-24 Thread Kennedy HAMILTON+
Overview ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization