On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:00:49 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > Well, it _is_ mysterious. > > > > Did you try to locate the code which failed? I got lost in macros and > > include files, and gave up very very easily. Stop hiding, Ingo. > > > > OK, I've managed to reproduce it. Removing the local_irq_save/restore > from sched_clock() makes it go away, as I'd expect (otherwise it would > really be magic). erm, why do you expect that? A local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore() pair shouldn't be affecting anything? > But given that it never seems to touch the softlockup > during testing, I have no idea what difference it makes... To what softlockup are you referring, and what does that have to do with anything? <feels dumb> _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
