Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:26:52 -0800 (PST) | From | Bradley Chapman <> | Subject | Re: What exactly are the issues with 2.6.0-test10 preempt? |
| |
Mr. Torvalds,
--- Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > > Well, FWIW, I'm getting 100% reproducible Oopses on __boot__ by enabling > > preemption AND (almost) all kernel-hacking CONFIG_DEBUG_* options - see my > > post of 21.11.2003 with subject "[OOPS] 2.6.0-test7 + preempt + hacking". > > If required, could try to narrow it down to 1 CONFIG option. > > I'd love to have more info - I actually looked at your original report, > and it's one of those "impossible" things as far as I can tell. The low > bit of the work "pending" flag should acts as a lock on workqueues, and > serialize access to one workqueue totally - so having it show up with a > pending timer is "strange" to say the least. The only two ways to clear > the "pending" timer is by running the work-queue - either for the timer to > have gone off (for the delayed case) _or_ the timer not to have evern been > set in the first place (for the immediate case). > > So more information would be wonderful.
What sort of information would you like me to provide, sir? The bug you're discussing here isn't affecting me; CONFIG_PREEMPT has been solid on 2.6.0-test10. This is on a Gateway 600S laptop with a P4-M 2Ghz processor and an i845 Brookdale chipset.
> > Linus
Brad
=====
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |