Andrew,
Now that Alexander confirmed this patch fixed his problem, any reason
it couldn't go into -mm ?
He gave this feedback :
On 11/30/05, Alexander V. Inyukhin <[email protected]> wrote:
...
> It seems to work.
> I have no BUG messages during boot with this patch.
/Jesper
On 11/29/05, Jesper Juhl <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a resend of a patch I proposed in the
> "[BUG] 2.6.15-rc1, soft lockup detected while probing IDE devices on AMD7441"
> thread.
> I recieved no ACK/NACK or other feedback on the patch, so I'm resending it in
> the hope of getting some comments :)
>
>
> From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
>
> Make sure we touch the softlockup watchdog in
> ide_wait_not_busy() since it may cause the watchdog to trigger, but
> there's really no point in that since the loop will eventually return, and
> triggering the watchdog won't do us any good anyway.
>
> 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.
>
> Since I have no IDE devices in my box I'm unable to test this beyond making
> sure it compiles without warnings or errors (which it does).
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/ide/ide-iops.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff -up linux-2.6.15-rc3-orig/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c linux-2.6.15-rc3/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c
> --- linux-2.6.15-rc3-orig/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c 2005-11-29 15:30:32.000000000 +0100
> +++ linux-2.6.15-rc3/drivers/ide/ide-iops.c 2005-11-29 15:44:23.000000000 +0100
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> #include <linux/hdreg.h>
> #include <linux/ide.h>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> +#include <linux/sched.h>
>
> #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> #include <asm/irq.h>
> @@ -1243,6 +1244,13 @@ int ide_wait_not_busy(ide_hwif_t *hwif,
> */
> if (stat == 0xff)
> return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /*
> + * We risk triggering the soft lockup detector, but we don't
> + * want that, so better poke it a bit once in a while.
> + */
> + if (!(timeout % 128))
> + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> }
> return -EBUSY;
> }
>
>
>
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
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 [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]
