From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <45DECD52.5010305@domain.hid> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:17:38 +0100 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <45DEBF20.2060907@domain.hid> <45DEC477.2070901@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <45DEC477.2070901@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Xenomai-core] Re: soft lockup detected on AT91RM9200 List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gilles Chanteperdrix Cc: Xenomai-core@domain.hid Gilles, >> When starting latency with 100=B5s period I get >> >> ~ # latency >> =3D=3D Sampling period: 100 us >> =3D=3D Test mode: periodic user-mode task >> =3D=3D All results in microseconds >> warming up... >> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! >> ... >> >> Ideas? How can I help with debugging this? >=20 > 100us is too small, as I already told you here: >=20 > https://mail.gna.org/public/xenomai-core/2007-02/msg00019.html No. That's probably a different thing. I am going to write a mail soon. > The latency process spend 100% of its time handling the timer ticks, an= d > the kernel detects a soft lockup. >=20 > The difference between I-pipe patch 1.6-01 and 1.6-02 is that the retur= n > from exception is correctly handled. Maybe it is what allows the kernel > to print a clean message. Maybe it is because you now have enabled the > soft lockup detector whereas you previously did not. Ok. Maybe. I don't care about missing deadlines. That's fine iff I overload the syst= em. But I still would have expected printout on the serial console. But ok, maybe the print in latency is done in a non-realtime task. So fair enough= . Steven