Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763332AbXFRNLo (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:11:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757525AbXFRNLg (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:11:36 -0400 Received: from mail-gw2.sa.eol.hu ([212.108.200.109]:36271 "EHLO mail-gw2.sa.eol.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761652AbXFRNLf (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:11:35 -0400 To: mingo@elte.hu CC: cebbert@redhat.com, chris@atlee.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kiran@scalex86.org In-reply-to: <20070618123646.GA22672@elte.hu> (message from Ingo Molnar on Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:36:46 +0200) Subject: Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60 References: <20070618064343.GA31113@elte.hu> <20070618081204.GA11153@elte.hu> <20070618083109.GA23572@elte.hu> <20070618091832.GA1860@elte.hu> <20070618093848.GA6880@elte.hu> <20070618094414.GA8261@elte.hu> <20070618123646.GA22672@elte.hu> Message-Id: From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:10:27 +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1337 Lines: 36 > > > * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > how about the patch below? Boot-tested on 32-bit. As a side-effect > > > > this change also removes the 255 CPUs limit from the 32-bit kernel. > > > > > > boot-tested on 64-bit too now. > > > > Strange, I can't even get past the compile stage ;) > > > > CC kernel/spinlock.o > > {standard input}: Assembler messages: > > {standard input}:207: Error: backward ref to unknown label "4:" > > oh, sorry - i built it with !PREEMPT, which doesnt make use of the flags > thing. I fixed the build and have cleaned up and simplified that code > some more - does the patch below work for you? (it does for me on both > 32-bit and 64-bit) Thanks. The patch boots, and... doesn't solve the bug. Weird. CPU bug? I've upgraded the BIOS not such a long time ago. I guess now we know what the problem is, it would be pretty easy to create some test code, that uses two threads, one of which loops in lock/unlock/rep_nop and the other that tries to acquire the lock and measures latency. Should I try to do that? Thanks, Miklos - 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/