Re: [patch 1/4] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 22:59:18 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 13:24 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > 
> > > And sched_clock's use of local_irq_save/restore appears to be absolutely
> > > correct, so I think it must be triggering a bug in either the self-tests
> > > or lockdep itself.
> > 
> > Why does sched_clock need to disable interrupts?
> 
> i concur. To me it appears not "absolutely correct" that someone 
> apparently added local_irq_save/restore to sched_clock(), but "absolute 
> madness". sched_clock() is _very_ performance-sensitive for the 
> scheduler, do not mess with it.

Why does a local_irq_save/restore make the selftests fail??
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/