Hi David, David Miller schrieb am Montag, 26. Februar 2007 um 10:12:19 -0800: > From: "J.J.Green" <j.j.green@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:58:48 +0000 (GMT) > > > Hi Andrew > > > > > The code around there looks relatively unbuggy to me. Removing that > > > remove_wait_queue() would be very bad - it would cause later stack > > > corruption. > > > > > > msleep_interruptible() certainly shouldn't consume CPU like that. Do we > > > know where the CPU time is being spent? The output of: > > > > > > readprofile -r > > > sleep 10 > > > readprofile -n -v -m /boot/System.map | sort -n -k 3 | tail -40 > > > > > > would tell us. > > > > As was mentioned in another reply, this message by > > Joerg Friedrich > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-sparc/2007/02/msg00045.html > > > > gives a possible explanantion of where the time is going. > > I applied the patch to the debian kernel sources for 2.6.18, > > it applied cleanly and fixed the problem. > > I've added Joerg's patch to my tree and will push it into > -stable as well. > > Reviewing this patch had been sitting deep in my backlog for weeks, I > just never got around to it, sorry. Can you just tell me if it's sufficient to check for a return value >0 of wait_event_interruptible_timeout? I was not sure so I extended the check to if ((val != -ERESTARTSYS) && (val > 0)) -- Yours, Jörg Friedrich There are only 10 types of people: Those who understand binary and those who don't. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
