Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2008 » November » 4

Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Frédéric Weisbecker
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks
Date: Monday, November 3, 2008 - 7:03 pm

2008/11/3 Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>:

Ok...actually I still have a deadlock. Or it seems to. I launch the
return tracer and then...the system
can block after several seconds, typically after I try to write some
characters on the terminal.

It happens more easily on SMP.

I enabled all I could for lock debugging, but I don't have any errors printed...
Lockdep uses an NMI wachdog?
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frederic Weisbecker, (Sun Nov 2, 5:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Steven Rostedt, (Sun Nov 2, 5:45 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Sun Nov 2, 6:17 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Ingo Molnar, (Sun Nov 2, 11:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Mon Nov 3, 6:24 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Mon Nov 3, 7:03 pm)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Nov 4, 2:43 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Tue Nov 4, 4:14 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Nov 4, 5:03 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Wed Nov 5, 3:50 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Nov 5, 3:55 am)
Re: [PATCH] tracing: use raw spinlocks instead of spinlocks, Frédéric Weisbecker, (Wed Nov 5, 5:41 pm)