lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] Re: setitimer lowlatency-2.2.13-A1 questions

On Tue, 7 Dec 1999, William Montgomery wrote:

> I installed the first patch to enable_bh yesterday a few minutes
> after I received it, it ran fine for about an hour. Then I got the
> email from Andrea with a conceptually safer patch, which I also installed.
> It ran fine all afternoon, no problems. I let it run all night
> and this morning I found my kernel trace triggered on a similar
> problem (maybe the same one). It appears that irq must have
> been disabled when enable_bh was called because it seems that the timer_bh
> did not run when it should have:

have you also fixed start_atomic_bh()/end_atomic_bh() in a similar manner?

> I'll try to reproduce and put in a printk to verify. Is it *always*
> unsafe to do_bottom_half in enable_bh when irq disabled or does that
> only apply to the SMP case?

if you are using ktrace it's probably simpler to use a 'dummy' empty
function which you call only if the bad condition happens. Thus it will
show up in the ktrace.

-- mingo



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.090 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site