interval to 100us to avoid userland hanging the system.
CC: Thomas Gleixner
CC: sta...@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
---
kernel/time/alarmtimer.c |9 +
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
index
We don't check if old_setting is non null before assigning it, so
correct this.
CC: Thomas Gleixner
CC: sta...@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
---
kernel/time/alarmtimer.c |7 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/k
Following common_timer_get, zero out the itimerspec passed in.
CC: Thomas Gleixner
CC: sta...@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
---
kernel/time/alarmtimer.c |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c b/kernel/time/alarmtimer.c
index
Thomas earlier submitted a fix to limit the RTC PIE freq, but
picked 5000Hz out of the air. Willy noticed that we should
instead use the 8192Hz max from the rtc man documentation.
Cc: Willy Tarreau
Cc: sta...@kernel.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
---
drivers/rtc
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 23:39 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 07/22/2011 18:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 03:05:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 09:12:51 -
> >> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>
> >>> The RTC hrtimer is self rearming. We really need to
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 09:22 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * john stultz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:35 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Peter/Ingo: Can you take a
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 21:25 +0200, Nikola Ciprich wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> > With a patch that frobs the starting value close to overflowing I hope,
> > otherwise we'll not hear from you in like 7 months ;-)
> sure. Which is the best patch to use for testing, You mean john's one?
> (http://www.go
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:02 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 10:30 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:35 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter/Ingo: Can you take a look at the above and let me know if you fin
On Fri, 2011-07-15 at 12:01 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 17:35 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> >
> > Peter/Ingo: Can you take a look at the above and let me know if you find
> > it too disagreeable?
>
> +static unsigned long long __cycles_
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 06:19 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:49:57AM +0900, MINOURA Makoto / ?$BL'1: ?$B??
> wrote:
> >
> > |> In <1310434819.30337.21.camel@work-vm>
> > |> john stultz wrote:
> >
> > > I'm
On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 10:18 +0900, MINOURA Makoto / 箕浦 真 wrote:
> We're experiencing similar but slightly different
> problems. Some KVM hosts crash after 210-220 uptime.
> Some of them hits divide-by-zero, but one of them shows:
>
> [671528.8780080] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#4 stuck for 61s! [kvm:1
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> We too experienced problems with just the G6 blades at near 215 days uptime
> (on the 19th of April), all at the same time. From our investigation, it
> seems that their cpu_clocks jumped suddenly far in the future and then
> almost immed
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 16:23 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 04:10:28PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6.32.y/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> > ===
> > --- linux-2.6.32.y.orig/kern
to Max,
Andi, Eric and Paul for review of earlier attempts and helping clarify
what is possible with regard to out of order execution.
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
Index: linux-2.6.32.y/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 01:09 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Ok, now care to resend this, with the proper changelog header and the
> > acks you've accumulated, so that I can apply this to the .32-stable
> > tree?
>
> Doesn't it need to get into mainline first?
Nope. xtime_cache was removed in 2.6.35
> > volatile cast) may be required to be fully future proof.
>
> I agree, this doesn't look like a viable solution at all.
So does something like this look better? I'm really not that familiar
with how ACCESS_ONCE is to be used, so forgive me if I'm not using it
correc
ble with regard to out of order execution.
Signed-off-by: John Stultz
Index: linux-2.6.32.y/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
===
--- linux-2.6.32.y.orig/kernel/time/timekeeping.c 2011-05-04
19:34:21.604314152 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.32.y/ker
rtc-bfin.c:253: warning: control reaches end of non-void
> function
>
> CC: sta...@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger
Thanks for catching this!
Acked-by: John Stultz
___
stable mailing list
stable@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
18 matches
Mail list logo
