> On Sonntag, 1. Juni 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
j.mell@t-online.de writes:
> > > or it is restored more than
> > > once. Please keep in mind, that I am always running two Einstein
> > > processes simultaneously on my two cores!
> > > I am willing to do further testing of this problem if someone can give
> > > me a hint how to continue.
> >
> > My bet would have been actually on
> > aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012 because it does some nasty
> > things (enable interrupts in the middle of __switch_to).
> >
> > I looked through the old patchkit and couldn't find any specific
> > PREEMPT problems. All code it changes should run with preempt_off
> >
> > You could verify with sticking WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible()) into
> > all the places acc207616a91a413a50fdd8847a747c4a7324167
> > changes (__unlazy_fpu, math_state_restore) and see if that triggers
> > anywhere.
>
> No, that did not trigger. I put the WARN_ON_ONCE into process.c, traps.c
> and also into the __unlazy_fpu macro in i387.h but I got no messages
> anywhere (dmesg, /var/log/messages, /var/log/warn) when the trap #8
> occurred.
> Meanwhile I am also running the tests on another machine to make sure it is
> not a hardware-related problem.
>
> Any new ideas are welcome!
>
> Meanwhile I will go back to 2.6.20 and revert
> aa283f49276e7d840a40fb01eee6de97eaa7e012. Maybe I got on a wrong track...
