Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:47:48 -0500 | From | Don Zickus <> | Subject | Re: In many cases softlockup can not be reported after disabling IRQ for long time |
| |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 03:28:09PM +0800, TAO HU wrote: > Resend with a new subject > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM, TAO HU <tghk48@motorola.com> wrote: > > Hi, All > > > > While playing kernel 3.0.8 with below test code, it does NOT report > > any softlockup with 60%~70% chances. > > NOTE: the softlockup timeout is set to 10 seconds (i.e. > > watchdog_thresh=5) in my test. > > ... ... > > preempt_disable(); > > local_irq_disable(); > > for (i = 0; i < 20; i++) > > mdelay(1000); > > local_irq_enable(); > > preempt_enable(); > > ... ... > > > > However, if I remove local_irq_disable()/local_irq_enable() it will > > report softlockup with no problem. > > I believe it is due to that after local_irq_enable() > > touch_softlockup_watchdog() is called prior softlockup timer.
Hi Hu,
Honestly, you should be getting hardlockup warnings if you are disabling interrupts. Do you see anything in the console output?
Cheers, Don -- 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/
| |