Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:45:54 +0100 | From | "Michal Piotrowski" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.20-git15 BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0! - timers? |
| |
Hi Ingo,
On 23/02/07, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > Michal, > > * Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here is more > > > > hardirqs last enabled at (30787): [<c0104249>] syscall_exit_work+0x11/0x26 > > hardirqs last disabled at (30788): [<c0103fc9>] ret_from_exception+0x9/0xc > > softirqs last enabled at (30202): [<c01265df>] __do_softirq+0xe4/0xea > > softirqs last disabled at (30193): [<c0106a75>] do_softirq+0x64/0xd1 > > could you please try the patch below? This is pretty much the only > condition under which we can silently 'leak' pending softirqs, and > trigger the new warning: if something does cond_resched_softirq() in > non-runnable state. (which is a no-no, but nothing enforced this, so it > could in theory happen.) So the question is, with this patch applied, do > you get these new warnings from sched.c?
Here is a dmesg after over 25 hours of uptime http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/files/tbf/bitis-gabonica/2.6.21-rc1/git-dmesg3 nothing new.
Regards, Michal
-- Michal K. K. Piotrowski LTG - Linux Testers Group (PL) (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/ltg/) LTG - Linux Testers Group (EN) (http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/linux_testers_group_en/) - 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/
| |