* Jörn Engel <joern@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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.patch > > > > 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. > 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?) > 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 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
