On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:38:59 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007 08:24:56 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The bug is in firstfloor only, and the fix (if present) will be there too.
> > >
> > > <checks>
> > >
> > > Nope,
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches/sched-clock-share
> > >
> > > is identical to
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.21-rc7/2.6.21-rc7-mm2/broken-out/x86_64-mm-sched-clock-share.patch
> >
> > Or perhaps the deadlock is in the cpufrequency handler. Does it happen
> > without CONFIG_CPUFREQ
> > too?
> >
> > [cpufreq handler calls ktime_get which might take xtime lock for reading]
> >
>
> Sounds right. That's what was happening to me for a while.
>
> Randy, it'd be interesting to try:
>
> --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c~a
> +++ a/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct
> cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
>
> tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> - if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> +// if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> +// mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> }
>
> return 0;
> _
I don't have CPU_FREQ enabled, so that didn't change anything.
> and if that "fixes" it, disable netconsole and do
>
> --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c~a
> +++ a/arch/x86_64/kernel/tsc.c
> @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ static int time_cpufreq_notifier(struct
>
> tsc_khz = cpufreq_scale(tsc_khz_ref, ref_freq, freq->new);
> if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
> - mark_tsc_unstable("cpufreq changes");
> + dump_stack();
> }
>
> return 0;
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
