> I did a quick git bisect search. This is one is the hurting one:
>
> Author: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> 2006-02-07 21:58:54
> Committer: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> 2006-02-08 01:12:33
> Parent: 8519fb30e438f8088b71a94a7d5a660a814d3872 ([PATCH] mm: compound release fix)
> Child: 0d4c3e7a8c65892c7d6a748fdbb4499e988880db ([PATCH] unshare system call -v5: Documentation file)
>
> The fix is to include a __delay(1) call in the loop, to correctly approximate
> the intended delay timeout of 1 second. The code assumes that every
> architecture implements __delay(1) to last around 1/(loops_per_jiffy*HZ)
> seconds.
>
> I guess we're once again suffering from being a virtualized platform: the
> formerly used call to cpu_relax() informed the underlying hypervisor that
> we want to give up the current cpu while __delay() keeps it.
> Unless we're scheduled away involuntarily.
> The "Detect Soft Lockups" option doesn't make too much sense too on our
> platform, since we get a lot of false positives.
> Quick fix: turn off the options CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK and
> CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP.
Wrong analysis. Our __delay() implementation is broken. This doesn't help for
the CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP case, but at least CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK works
again with this.
Andrew, could you pick this one up, or should I send it separately?
[PATCH] s390: fix __delay implementation
From: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
Fix __delay implementation. Called with an argument "1" or "0" it
would loop nearly forever (since (1/2)-1 = 0xffffffff).
Signed-off-by: Heiko Carstens <[email protected]>
---
arch/s390/lib/delay.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/delay.c b/arch/s390/lib/delay.c
index e96c35b..71f0a2f 100644
--- a/arch/s390/lib/delay.c
+++ b/arch/s390/lib/delay.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ void __delay(unsigned long loops)
*/
__asm__ __volatile__(
"0: brct %0,0b"
- : /* no outputs */ : "r" (loops/2) );
+ : /* no outputs */ : "r" ((loops/2) + 1));
}
/*
-
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]
