On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:16 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Ouch! I think you are on to something: > > Yeah, there's somethign there, but looking at Chris' backtrace, there's > nothing there to disable preemption. So if it was this simple case, it > should still have preempted him to let the other process run and finish > up. >
My .config has no lockdep or schedule debugging and voluntary preempt. I do have CONFIG_INLINE_OPTIMIZE on, its a good name for trusting gcc I guess. > So I don't think Chris' softlockup is at least _exactly_ that case. > There's something else going on too. > > That said, I do think it's a mistake for us to care about the value of > "spin_on_owner()". I suspect v8 should > > - always have > > if (need_resched()) > break > > in the outer loop. > > - drop the return value from "spin_on_owner()", and just break out if > anything changes (including the need_resched() flag). > > - I'd also drop the "old_value < 0 &&" test, and just test the > list_empty() unconditionally. > I'll give the above a shot, and we can address the preempt + !owner in another rev -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
