Hi,
after hacking away the barriers I-pipe erected in front of lockdep
(patches will follow on adeos-main), I was finally able to visualize a
bit more what our colleagues see in reality on SMP: some ugly, not yet
understood circular dependency when running some Xenomai app under gdb.
What lockdep
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
after hacking away the barriers I-pipe erected in front of lockdep
(patches will follow on adeos-main), I was finally able to visualize a
bit more what our colleagues see in reality on SMP: some ugly, not yet
understood circular dependency when running some Xenomai app
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Hi,
after hacking away the barriers I-pipe erected in front of lockdep
(patches will follow on adeos-main), I was finally able to visualize a
bit more what our colleagues see in reality on SMP: some ugly, not yet
understood circular dependency when running some Xenomai app
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do_schedule_event() is the culprit when it reads the pending signals on the
shared queue (XNDEBUG check for rearming the timers),
A stupid suggestion: if we know that the spinlock is always locked
when calling
Hi,
not worth to call it a patch, at least not when looking at the second
file.
Lockdep gets unhappy when I-pipe is enabled because
a) TRACE_IRQS_ON/OFF instrumentations in entry_64.S do not correlate
with the root's pipeline state. Instead of fixing the latter (which
costs extra
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do_schedule_event() is the culprit when it reads the pending signals on the
shared queue (XNDEBUG check for rearming the timers),
A stupid suggestion: if we know that the spinlock is always
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do_schedule_event() is the culprit when it reads the pending signals on the
shared queue (XNDEBUG check for rearming the timers),
A stupid suggestion: if we know that the
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do_schedule_event() is the culprit when it reads the pending signals on the
shared queue (XNDEBUG check for rearming the timers),
A stupid suggestion: if we know that the
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The include/asm-arm/atomic.h header now defines the xnarch_memory_barrier in
addition to user-space atomic operations. The pxa3xx deserves a special
treatment since it uses the ARMv6 memory barrier operation
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The include/asm-arm/atomic.h header now defines the
xnarch_memory_barrier in
addition to user-space
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The include/asm-arm/atomic.h header now defines the xnarch_memory_barrier in
addition to user-space atomic operations. The pxa3xx deserves a special
treatment since it uses the ARMv6
Philippe Gerum wrote:
Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Philippe Gerum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
do_schedule_event() is the culprit when it reads the pending signals on
the
shared queue (XNDEBUG check for rearming the timers),
A stupid
12 matches
Mail list logo
