From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757522Ab0GURgu (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:36:50 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:58626 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753322Ab0GURgs (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:36:48 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kernel/panic.c warn_slowpath_common printk timestamp weirdness In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:36:41 PDT." <4C46F7E9.3070200@linux.intel.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <62021.1279716868@localhost> <4C46F7E9.3070200@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1279733737_4583P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:35:37 -0400 Message-ID: <6895.1279733737@localhost> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 128.173.14.107 localhost Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=neutral-1, source=Fixed, refid=n/a, actions=MAILHURDLE SPF TAG X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=dagger.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020207.4C47300A.011A,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2009-09-22 00:05:22, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1279733737_4583P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:36:41 PDT, Arjan van de Ven said: > On 7/21/2010 5:54 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > Seeing this on my Dell Latitude. The timestamps from the 'cut here' and > > WARNING lines are different even though they're issued by sequential lines in > > panic.c - but then the printk timestamps remain identical even through an > > *entire second* WARN call. Is somebody blocking clock interrupts and faili ng > > to re-enable them, or is something different going on here? > > > > [42875.543219] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [42875.544006] WARNING: at lib/plist.c:57 plist_check_head+0x47/0x114() > > > > > [42875.544006] WARNING: at lib/plist.c:57 plist_check_head+0x47/0x114() > > [42875.544006] Hardware name: Latitude E6500 > > > > > [42882.428016] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [42882.428016] WARNING: at lib/plist.c:57 plist_check_head+0x47/0x114() > > > > > Maybe I have not have had coffee yet.. but I don't see the one second > jump in the three cases you mailed... I mean the value stays nailed down, even through a second WARN call - it outputs two entire WARN tracebacks with the exact same timestamp. Even if the same timestamp gets used for the traceback, I'd expect the next 'cut here' to have a new timestamp, and the second WARN trace to have a different timestamp as well. --==_Exmh_1279733737_4583P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFMRy/pcC3lWbTT17ARAnXPAKCD4Cth2t3kT81WcfTJR7srEMuV7gCfVBnZ Q6/ez2NqlGPSadN4p/62Pp0= =zn2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1279733737_4583P--