From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070424113222.ed2e1314.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton 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 List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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). But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes... J