On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 04:26:11PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This one fixed the EINVAL messages, and now UML boots, but consumes
> 100% CPU constantly.

Can you disable NO_HZ and try the patch below, which WorksForMe (TM)?

                                Jeff

-- 
Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com


Index: linux-2.6.22/arch/um/os-Linux/time.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22.orig/arch/um/os-Linux/time.c   2007-11-14 10:33:29.000000000 
-0500
+++ linux-2.6.22/arch/um/os-Linux/time.c        2007-11-26 15:50:46.000000000 
-0500
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ long long disable_timer(void)
 {
        struct itimerval time = ((struct itimerval) { { 0, 0 }, { 0, 0 } });
 
-       if(setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &time, &time) < 0)
+       if (setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &time, &time) < 0)
                printk(UM_KERN_ERR "disable_timer - setitimer failed, "
                       "errno = %d\n", errno);
 
@@ -74,13 +74,61 @@ long long os_nsecs(void)
        return timeval_to_ns(&tv);
 }
 
+#ifdef UML_CONFIG_NO_HZ
+static int after_sleep_interval(struct timespec *ts)
+{
+}
+#else
+static inline long long timespec_to_us(const struct timespec *ts)
+{
+       return ((long long) ts->tv_sec * UM_USEC_PER_SEC) +
+               ts->tv_nsec / UM_NSEC_PER_USEC;
+}
+
+static int after_sleep_interval(struct timespec *ts)
+{
+       int usec = UM_USEC_PER_SEC / UM_HZ;
+       long long start_usecs = timespec_to_us(ts);
+       struct timeval tv;
+       struct itimerval interval;
+
+       /*
+        * It seems that rounding can increase the value returned from
+        * setitimer to larger than the one passed in.  Over time,
+        * this will cause the remaining time to be greater than the
+        * tick interval.  If this happens, then just reduce the first
+        * tick to the interval value.
+        */
+       if (start_usecs > usec)
+               start_usecs = usec;
+       tv = ((struct timeval) { .tv_sec  = start_usecs / UM_USEC_PER_SEC,
+                                .tv_usec = start_usecs % UM_USEC_PER_SEC });
+       interval = ((struct itimerval) { { 0, usec }, tv });
+
+       if (setitimer(ITIMER_VIRTUAL, &interval, NULL) == -1)
+               return -errno;
+
+       return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
 extern void alarm_handler(int sig, struct sigcontext *sc);
 
 void idle_sleep(unsigned long long nsecs)
 {
-       struct timespec ts = { .tv_sec  = nsecs / UM_NSEC_PER_SEC,
-                              .tv_nsec = nsecs % UM_NSEC_PER_SEC };
+       struct timespec ts;
+
+       /*
+        * nsecs can come in as zero, in which case, this starts a
+        * busy loop.  To prevent this, reset nsecs to the tick
+        * interval if it is zero.
+        */
+       if (nsecs == 0)
+               nsecs = UM_NSEC_PER_SEC / UM_HZ;
+       ts = ((struct timespec) { .tv_sec       = nsecs / UM_NSEC_PER_SEC,
+                                 .tv_nsec      = nsecs % UM_NSEC_PER_SEC });
 
        if (nanosleep(&ts, &ts) == 0)
                alarm_handler(SIGVTALRM, NULL);
+       after_sleep_interval(&ts);
 }
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to