* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > here's the patch below. Could you try to revert it?
>
> Thanks Ingo.
>
> If Daniel was trying to detect soft lock ups of lower priority tasks
> (tasks that block all tasks lower than itself), I've added a counter
> to Daniels patch to keep from showing this for the one time case.
> This doesn't spit anything out for me anymore. But I guess this could
> detect a higher priority task blocking lower ones, as long as higher
> tasks don't run often (thus reseting the count).
thanks. In -52-09 i've unapplied the original patch, and i've now
uploaded -52-10 with Daniel's original patch plus your patch applied.
I think 10 seconds is pretty reasonable - if an RT task runs
uninterrupted for that long time i think we want to know about it. It's
not illegal for an RT task to monopolize the CPU for that long, but it's
certainly unusual enough to warn about. (and the warning can be turned
off)
Ingo
-
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]
| |
 |