From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:14:27 -0700 Message-ID: <20070424131427.940d461e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070327214919.800272641@goop.org> <20070327215827.871954359@goop.org> <20070423234910.50149faf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E43A7.1050001@goop.org> <20070424105738.e0ce36a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E4969.6070802@goop.org> <20070424113222.ed2e1314.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E61F1.7060403@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <462E61F1.7060403@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Bhargava , Thomas@smtp2.linux-foundation.org, Lindsley , Prarit@smtp2.linux-foundation.org, john stultz , Zachary@smtp2.linux-foundation.org, Linux Kernel , Eric Dumazet , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Chris Lalancette , Paul Mackerras , Rick@smtp2.linux-foundation.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Ingo Molnar , Gleixner List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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, Ingo. > > > > OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore > from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would > really be magic). erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair shouldn't be affecting anything? > But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes... To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with anything? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752670AbXDXUPo (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:15:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753832AbXDXUPo (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:15:44 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([65.172.181.25]:49219 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbXDXUPn (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:15:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:14:27 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Prarit Bhargava , Eric Dumazet , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz , Zachary Amsden , James Morris , Dan Hecht , Paul Mackerras , Martin Schwidefsky , Chris Lalancette , Rick Lindsley , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog Message-Id: <20070424131427.940d461e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <462E61F1.7060403@goop.org> References: <20070327214919.800272641@goop.org> <20070327215827.871954359@goop.org> <20070423234910.50149faf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E43A7.1050001@goop.org> <20070424105738.e0ce36a9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E4969.6070802@goop.org> <20070424113222.ed2e1314.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <462E61F1.7060403@goop.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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, Ingo. > > > > OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore > from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would > really be magic). erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair shouldn't be affecting anything? > But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes... To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with anything?