On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 15:34 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Have you tried turning on
> "Non-preemptible critical section latency timing" or "Latency tracing"
I just turned on the following:
CONFIG_CRITICAL_PREEMPT_TIMING
CONFIG_CRITICAL_IRQSOFF_TIMING
CONFIG_LATENCY_TRACE
recompiled and bo
Have you tried turning on
"Non-preemptible critical section latency timing" or "Latency tracing"
I don't know if it's related to the PI changes, but I'm getting a crash
with those on em64t .
With both above options I get
<0>init[1]: segfault at 8010ef44 rip 8010ef44 rsp
7f
Hi Ingo,
Looks like the BKL is a little more complicated than what I first sent.
I've been analyzing the logic and found that there's a point in time
where the BKL->P1->L1->P2->BKL can exist without any of the spinlocks
protecting it. That is after P1 blocks on L1 but before it schedules
out and
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I just found another deadlock in the pi_lock logic. The PI logic is
> very dependent on the P1->L1->P2->L2->P3 order. But our good old
> friend is back, the BKL.
>
> Since the BKL is let go and regrabbed even if a task is grabbing
> a
Ingo,
I just found another deadlock in the pi_lock logic. The PI logic is
very dependent on the P1->L1->P2->L2->P3 order. But our good old friend
is back, the BKL.
Since the BKL is let go and regrabbed even if a task is grabbing another
lock, it messes up the order. For example, it can do the
Hubert Tonneau wrote:
I gave this one a spin, and my laptop locked hard after something like one hour
(everything frozen). As a result what I report is probably not very helpfull.
It was the first time I was trying an RT kernel, and the stock kernel works ok
on this laptop (except suspend, but o
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 17:18 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > - x86_64 boot fix (Daniel Walker)
> >
> > Ingo, Did this work for you?
>
> nope, it's a UP box.
Does it hang early d
* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > - x86_64 boot fix (Daniel Walker)
>
> Ingo, Did this work for you?
nope, it's a UP box.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 10:48 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> - x86_64 boot fix (Daniel Walker)
Ingo, Did this work for you?
Daniel
-
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.or
I gave this one a spin, and my laptop locked hard after something like one hour
(everything frozen). As a result what I report is probably not very helpfull.
It was the first time I was trying an RT kernel, and the stock kernel works ok
on this laptop (except suspend, but one can do without it).
* Steven Rostedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo,
>
> I think you have a slight glitch in your patch.
>
> -- Steve
>
> $ patch -p1 -s < /work/realtime-patches/patch-2.6.13-rt1
> The next patch would delete the file Makefile.rej,
> which does not exist! Assume -R? [n]
> Apply anyway? [n]
in
Ingo,
I think you have a slight glitch in your patch.
-- Steve
$ patch -p1 -s < /work/realtime-patches/patch-2.6.13-rt1
The next patch would delete the file Makefile.rej,
which does not exist! Assume -R? [n]
Apply anyway? [n]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux
12 matches
Mail list logo
