Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 1999 16:50:33 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |