From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264196AbUFFWZ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:25:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264198AbUFFWZ5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:25:57 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:10115 "EHLO gate.crashing.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264196AbUFFWZz (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:25:55 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Spinlock-timeout From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Jake Moilanen Cc: Linux Kernel list In-Reply-To: <1086467486.20906.59.camel@dhcp-client215.upt.austin.ibm.com> References: <1086467486.20906.59.camel@dhcp-client215.upt.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1086560618.10538.32.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:23:38 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 15:31, Jake Moilanen wrote: > Here's a patch that will BUG() when a spinlock is held for longer then X > seconds. It is useful for catching deadlocks since not all archs have a > NMI watchdog. > > It is also helpful to find locks that are held too long. > > Please send comments. It would be better to use the timebase on CPUs that have one, no ? Or you'll miss cases where either irqs are disabled or you are on a code path issued by the timer interrupt, and thus jiffies isn't updated