On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:52:04 +0200 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > apparently the functionality of the soft lockup watchdog was never > > > actually tested with that patch applied ... > > > > > > [this is -stable material too.] > > > > Still isn't working. I'm getting random meaningless softlockup > > trippings coming out for no apparent reason. > > hm, you still havent applied the other 4 patches i sent: > > softlockup-fix.patch > > softlockup-add-irq-regs-h.patch > softlockup-better-printout.patch > softlockup-cleanups.patch > softlockup-use-cpu-clock.patch > > they are all necessary. I think I have. Seems that someone hasn't been naming their patches consistently (which is quite irksome). I have: fix-the-softlockup-watchdog-to-actually-work.patch softlockup-make-asm-irq_regsh-available-on-every-platform.patch softlockup-improve-debug-output.patch softlockup-watchdog-style-cleanups.patch softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter.patch softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter-fix.patch > softlockup-use-cpu-clock.patch could easily solve the present problem > you have: as i pointed it out it is _wrong_ to use sched_clock(), > because sched_clock() is not a reliable clocksource. Especially on your > VAIO. It fails with them all applied too: fix-leak-on-proc-lockdep_stats.patch OK fix-the-softlockup-watchdog-to-actually-work.patch BAD softlockup-make-asm-irq_regsh-available-on-every-platform.patch softlockup-improve-debug-output.patch BAD softlockup-watchdog-style-cleanups.patch softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter.patch softlockup-add-a-proc-tuning-parameter-fix.patch BAD - 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/
