On 04/06/2013 01:22 AM, Peter Hurley wrote: > I'll see if I can reproduce this over the weekend on an old single-core laptop I > still have. TIA for doing this. > There were some race conditions in the N_TTY line discipline which I > recently fixed. Those changes are in linux-next. Can you test if this is > reproducible on linux-next? I tried today's -next and I see the same issue :-( > Assuming I don't reproduce this on the laptop, the only other > explanation I can think of right now is that ARCLinux is not properly > handling signal-driven i/o (assuming the BusyBox /bin/sh uses SIGIO). Do > you know if there is anything special about the way ARCLinux handle > signals? No, it's pretty standard stuff - we are uClibc based though - as opposed to glibc so there might be some subtleties - but we do run LTP open posix regularly. Also the test setup is a slowish 80MHz FPGA so this is not something many people have in their regular test setups. I'll start reading the relevant code myself - and will be willing to take any debug/test patches which help with troubleshooting of this issue. Just to re-iterate, my test setup has a minimal busybox based rootfs, 3 telnet sessions, each running a while true; do find / -name "*" ; done I'm running out of ramfs, no external disk/nfs mounts to reduce the peripheral I/O slowing down the find (although NFS stuff will be caches anyways after first fetch). Also please make sure you have CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT otherwise there's a possibility (atleast on ARC builds) that a stale register causes timer list to be corrupted in mod_timer(). Thx, -Vineet -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
