Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Aug 2004 03:56:44 -0700 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: [patch] preempt-timing-on-2.6.8-rc2-O2 |
| |
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: >> (kjournald/189): 997us non-preemptible critical section violated 100 us >> preempt threshold starting at journal_commit_transaction+0x642/0x2b10 >> and ending at journal_commit_transaction+0x24ce/0x2b10 >> [<c0105d7e>] dump_stack+0x1e/0x30 >> [<c011ad0f>] dec_preempt_count+0x3f/0x50 >> [<c01dfd3e>] journal_commit_transaction+0x24ce/0x2b10 >> [<c01e3bf4>] kjournald+0x1a4/0x710 >> [<c0102765>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0x10
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ok, found it - it's a false positive in commit.c due to need_resched() > not doing a touch_preempt_timing(). Newest patch at: > http://redhat.com/~mingo/voluntary-preempt/preempt-timing-on-2.6.8-rc2-O2
Great, thanks for fixing this up.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i changed need_resched() to do a touch_preempt_timing() - this also got > rid of some other changes. All code i checked really takes > need_resched() seriously if it looks at it - any reason why you didnt > add this to need_resched() before?
I was less sure of this as I hadn't audited need_resched() callers to be sure they did cond_resched() or similar. As you've carried out the audit of need_resched() callers, you have the certainty I didn't.
-- wli - 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/
| |