On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:18:23 -0400
Konrad Rzeszutek <[email protected]> wrote:
> I tested your patch along with mine and found two things out:
>
> 1). Missing this patch (for i386 platform)
>
> diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c b/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> index 90da057..9f3a7ff 100644
> --- a/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -207,6 +207,7 @@ static void print_trace_address(void *da
> {
> printk("%s [<%08lx>] ", (char *)data, addr);
> print_symbol("%s\n", addr);
> + touch_nmi_watchdog();
> }
ok...
> static struct stacktrace_ops print_trace_ops = {
>
>
> 2). If I run Alt-SysRq-t about 5000 times in a loop, the slow down
> with this change is about 5%. Is this a big issue? (This was
> testing both i686 and x86_64).
>
I'm surprised. I assume this was when it was printing to a high-speed
device? console or netconsole?
I don't think we need to spend too much time optimising sysrq-T performance ;)
-
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]
