On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:17:51PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On Monday 21 November 2005 21:38, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Sul, 2005-11-20 at 17:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Quite normal. The old IDE probe code takes a long time and it makes the
> > > > soft lockup code believe a lockup occurred - rememeber its a debugging
> > > > tool not a 100% reliable detector of failures.
> > >
> > > We could put a touch_softlockup_watchdog() in there.
> >
> > Would make sense. Spin up and probe can take over 30 seconds worst case
> > and is polled in the IDE world. The loop will eventually exit and a true
> > lockup caused by a stuck IORDY line will hang forever in an inb/outb so
> > neither softlockup or even nmi lockup would save you.
>
> How about something like the patch below?
>
> The if (!(timeout % 128)) bit is a guess that since
> touch_softlockup_watchdog() is a per_cpu thing it will be cheaper to do the
> modulo calculation than calling the function every time through the loop,
> especially as the nr of CPU's go up. But it's purely a guess, so I may very
> well be wrong - also, 128 is an arbitrarily chosen value, it's just a nice
> number that'll give us <10 function calls pr second.
It seems to work.
I have no BUG messages during boot with this patch.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
