Re: x86-64 preemption fix from IRQ and BKL in 2.6.12-rc1-mm2

2005-03-28 Thread Andi Kleen
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 08:05:13PM +0200, Christophe Saout wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 27.03.2005, 19:26 +0200 schrieb Andi Kleen: > > > > preempt_schedule_irq is not an i386 specific function and seems to take > > > special care of BKL preemption and since reiserfs does use the BKL to do > > > certa

Re: x86-64 preemption fix from IRQ and BKL in 2.6.12-rc1-mm2

2005-03-27 Thread Christophe Saout
Am Sonntag, den 27.03.2005, 19:26 +0200 schrieb Andi Kleen: > > preempt_schedule_irq is not an i386 specific function and seems to take > > special care of BKL preemption and since reiserfs does use the BKL to do > > certain things I think this actually might be the problem...? > > Hmm, preempt_s

Re: x86-64 preemption fix from IRQ and BKL in 2.6.12-rc1-mm2

2005-03-27 Thread Andi Kleen
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:26:25PM +0100, Christophe Saout wrote: > Fortunately the kernel locked up and there was no data corruption. > > I've got PREEMPT and PREEMPT_BKL enabled under UP. > > I just took a look at the change and found this: > > x86-64 does this (in entry.S): > > bt

x86-64 preemption fix from IRQ and BKL in 2.6.12-rc1-mm2

2005-03-25 Thread Christophe Saout
Hi, > +x86_64-fix-config_preempt.patch > > x86_64-fix-config_preempt.patch > x86_64: Fix CONFIG_PREEMPT Has this one been stress-tested? I've got the impression that things have become a lot worse. I've been seeing things like these: Mar 25 01:00:48 websrv2 REISERFS: panic (device dm-1): clm