From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422850AbXCWM2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:28:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422847AbXCWM2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:28:55 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57660 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422844AbXCWM2y (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 08:28:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:27:39 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Mingming Cao , Adrian Bunk , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Michal Piotrowski , Mariusz Kozlowski , Oliver Pinter , Sid Boyce , Nick Piggin , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [1/6] 2.6.21-rc4: known regressions Message-ID: <20070323122739.GA5178@elte.hu> References: <20070318184908.GU752@stusta.de> <46020385.50301@yahoo.com.au> <1174612132.16068.114.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Linus Torvalds wrote: > [ Ok, I think it's those timers again... agreed - this seems to be a genuine CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS=y bug. (which has probably not been fixed since -rc4 either, we have no bugfix in this area that could explain the expires_next==KTIME_MAX timer state visible in SysRq-Q.) there seems to be a trend in the reports: HT P4 CPUs. > Ingo: let me just state how *happy* I am that I told you off when > you wanted to merge the hires timers and NO_HZ before 2.6.20 because > they were "stable". You were wrong, and 2.6.20 is at least in > reasonable shape. [...] yes - i was quite wrong pushing it so hard. (and doubly so given your stated focus of making v2.6.20 a quiet release) Sorry :-/ > [...] Now we just need to make sure that 2.6.21 will be too.. ] yeah - we are working hard on it. Ingo