Hi,
Today I decided to try Ingo's rt-preempt patch on 2.6.12 (V0.7.51-02). I'm
most interested in the CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT mode, so I selected this option
instead of the others. I enabled a couple of the debugging options, but I
wasn't totally clear on which options are most useful, so I just enabled the
ones that didn't have a warning about significant overhead, namely..
CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP=y
CONFIG_WAKEUP_TIMING=y
CONFIG_CRITICAL_TIMING=y
CONFIG_LATENCY_TIMING=y
Additionally (by mistake) I enabled:
CONFIG_CRITICAL_IRQSOFF_TIMING=y
Which does mention overhead.
Which debugging options are most useful for testing purposes? Is what I've
selected enough? Also, I got a few unexpected messages in dmesg on bootup.
Firstly;
spawn_desched_task(00000000)
desched cpu_callback 3/00000000
ksoftirqd started up.
softirq RT prio: 24.
ksoftirqd started up.
softirq RT prio: 24.
[...]
desched cpu_callback 2/00000000
desched thread 0 started up.
softlockup thread 0 started up.
Why does it print out the same ksoftirqd message six times? Is this expected
behaviour? Next, I got a warning about CONFIG_CRITICAL_IRQSOFF_TIMING;
should this option be enabled?
Finally, I got this:
BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
[<c013d7e9>] softlockup_tick+0x89/0xb0 (8)
[<c0108590>] timer_interrupt+0x50/0xf0 (20)
[<c013da91>] handle_IRQ_event+0x81/0x100 (16)
[<c013dbfc>] __do_IRQ+0xec/0x190 (48)
[<c0105a28>] do_IRQ+0x48/0x70 (40)
=======================
[<c024df3b>] acpi_processor_idle+0x0/0x258 (8)
[<c0103d03>] common_interrupt+0x1f/0x24 (12)
[<c024df3b>] acpi_processor_idle+0x0/0x258 (4)
[<c024e05e>] acpi_processor_idle+0x123/0x258 (40)
[<c024df3b>] acpi_processor_idle+0x0/0x258 (32)
[<c0101116>] cpu_idle+0x56/0x80 (16)
[<c03a486c>] start_kernel+0x17c/0x1c0 (12)
[<c03a43b0>] unknown_bootoption+0x0/0x1f0 (20)
I think it's when my scripts try to set up the IrDA port; the script runs the
following (I have a weird broken NC6000 IrDA port which needs messing around
with to work)..
/usr/bin/smcinit -v -s 0x3E8 -f 0x130 -i 4 -d 3 >/dev/null
Of course, the message could've just been coincidental, as it doesn't actually
refer to the smcs driver at all.
I set preempt_max_latency to zero, but the only messages I've got back from
the kernel so far are:
( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 3 us maximum-latency wakeup.
( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 1003 us maximum-latency wakeup.
( softirq-timer/0-3 |#0): new 1001 us maximum-latency wakeup.
Which is presumably a good sign.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
personal: alistair()devzero!co!uk
university: s0348365()sms!ed!ac!uk
student: CS/CSim Undergraduate
contact: 1F2 55 South Clerk Street,
Edinburgh. EH8 9PP.
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |