* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> [090216 13:26]: > We do get 0x100 which is 1 << RCU_SOFTIRQ, i.e. the RCU softirq. Paul, > this indeed seems to be a CONFIG_TREE_RCU=y bug. > What is weird is that RCU_SOFTIRQ gets set again and again - but there's > no raise_softirq() calls. Could you please do a two-CPU trace too via: > echo 3 > /debug/tracing/tracing_cpumask > So that we can see what's happening on the other CPU? > Also, could you please apply the debug patch below (or update to the > very latest -tip tree), so that we get trace entries of softirq triggers > too? Ok, the new trace with these additional modifications is here: http://damien.wyart.free.fr/ksoftirqd_pb/trace_tip_2009.02.16_1300_ksoftirqd_pb_abstime_proc_mask3.txt.gz -- Damien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
