On 05/21/2013 05:20 PM, Tom Cook wrote: > No. I've also tried compiling without kgdb and enabling tracers still > causes a crash (see below). > > Again, I'm far from expert here, but as near as I can tell, a fast > interrupt exception handler is causing a data abort exception. Do the > tracers use fast interrupts to wake up? Is there some tracer-related > memory that's getting swapped out? I just tried the same thing on my AM33xx and nothing bad happned here. One thing still: you might want to use "-n" for nanosleep. Could you try [0] to check if you are not using more memory than available? If the OOM-killer kills the program, then it is okay, if the data-abort exception comes or the kernel crashes in a strange way then it is HW. The tracer do not use any special interrupts on purpose. Now that I saw rasperry-pi let me ask this: do you have any non-mainline patches on-top? And if it is the case, could you try to get rid of them? Also you can try the same test without the RT patches? [0] http://download.breakpoint.cc/malloc.c Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
