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
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
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
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
4 matches
Mail list logo