* Jörn Engel <joern@logfs.org> wrote:

quoted text
> On Fri, 30 November 2007 14:43:12 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> >   http://redhat.com/~mingo/latency-tracing-patches/latency-tracing-v2.6.24-rc3.combo.pat...
> > 
> > does it work any better?
> 
> It compiles.  It boots with a 512M RAM (384M was too little with all
> the other debug options on).  But it seems to lock up when running
> trace-cmd.  On a rerun it locks up again, but with different output.

hm, you should decrease MAX_TRACE in kernel/latency_tracing.c from 1 
million to 16K or so. 1 million entries probably depletes lowmem quite 
seriously.

quoted text
> Rerun was captured:
> http://logfs.org/~joern/trace1.jpg

hm, that looks weird. if you disable CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, does that 
improve things? (or just turns a noisy lockup into a silent lockup?)

quoted text
> I should do a couple of runs, but my girlfriend claims realtime 
> priority for the evening.

yeah, SCHED_IDLE is not generally well received by them.

	Ingo
-
unsubscribe notice
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/