On Tuesday 01 October 2002 19:31, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 18:56, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 01 October 2002 16:20, Richard.Zidlicky@stud.informatik.uni-erlangen.de wrote:
> > > > > no preempt or anything fancy, m68k vanila 2.4.19 (well almost).
> > > >
> > > > Vanilla would be CONFIG_SMP=y, is that what you have?
> > >
> > > Somehow I doubt Linux supports m68k SMP machines ;)
> >
> > CONFIG_SMP=y works perfectly well on single cpu machines - it forces
> > the spinlocks to actually exist. It's not supposed to change any
> > behaviour, but you never know. Behaviour is obviously changing here.
>
> Again, m68k was the target.
Sure fine, no good reason to be cryptic about it though.
#error "m68k doesn't do SMP yet"
So SMP must be off or the compile would abort. Well, the only interesting
difference remaining is the extra count for the LRU. I actually had that
parameterized at one time so you could turn it on/off easily, but akpm
complained about #ifdef's so I took that out ;-)
Richard, before I go making a test patch for you (it's not completely
straightforward) can you confirm that your bug comes back when you back
the lru race patch out?
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST