Re: [BUG] 2.6.15-rc1, soft lockup detected while probing IDE devices on AMD7441

[Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 11/30/05, Alexander V. Inyukhin <shurick@sectorb.msk.ru> wrote:
> 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 <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> 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.
>
Great.
Thank you for testing.

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/