Subject: Re: 2.6.17-rc3-mm1
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Benoit Boissinot <bboissin@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20060503064816.ef7ec2b7.akpm@osdl.org>
References: <20060501014737.54ee0dd5.akpm@osdl.org>
	 <40f323d00605030211t78e41d18h298c8be3721a135a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060503064816.ef7ec2b7.akpm@osdl.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 16:15:32 +0200
Message-Id: <1146665732.27820.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1040
Lines: 26

On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 06:48 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Since a few -mm releases I am seeing processes stuck in a
> > nanosleep({0, 0}, NULL) syscall. Sometimes, they unfreeze after
> > several hours.
>
> Thanks.   Yes, please test mainline first - it will probably occur there.
> 
> And it's a nanosleep(zero) all the time?  The obvious answer would be that
> a clock tick came in at the right time and we end up trying to sleep for -1
> units.  But if that was the case, things wouldn't unsleep after just
> several hours.

I don't see how that should happen. The expiry time is stored in
absolute time format when nanosleep is started and compared against
current time in the softirq. We might miss one tick, but not more.

Benoit, can you please mail me .config and a boot log ?

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/