Very Computer

by **lcku** » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00

Hi

I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
sched.c.
But why hangs the system always, if i use some debugging in
sched.c??????
Anyone can tell me why???

Regards

lckun

by **lcku** » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00

> Hi

> I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> sched.c.
> But why hangs the system always, if i use some debugging in
> sched.c??????
> Anyone can tell me why???

> Regards

> lckun

After using for kernel output, kernel hangs almost at booting "Starting
cron daemon: "

lckun

by **Stefan Monnie** » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00

> I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> sched.c.

I don't know how `printk' is implemented in the kernel, but it might
simply not work from inside the scheduler (it seems very easy to get in a
dead-lock situation when doing anything vaguely fancy in the scheduler).

Stefan

by **Stefan Monnie** » Sat, 29 May 1999 04:00:00

> I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
> printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);
> only to test it.
> It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

So what ?

int x = 1;
char y = *(char*)&x;

will also work in most cases (but will not always put the same value in `y').
That doesn't mean that it is *supposed* to work.
Now, again, I have no clue whether printk is supposed to be working from
goodness or not, but you'd better check this first.

Quote:> Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but
> in vain... :-( :-(

How about asking on the list I pointed you to earlier so that you can know
instead of using trial and error which only tells you what `seems to be
working' rather than `what should be working'.

Stefan

by **lcku** » Sun, 30 May 1999 04:00:00

Thanks Stefan,

I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);

only to test it.

It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but in
vain... :-( :-(

Anyway thanks agian your tips...

Regards

lckun

> > I have 2.2.9 running on Pentium II machines (dual 450 MHz Pentium-MMX).
> > It seems for me to stable unless i don't make a debugging with printk in
> > sched.c.

> I don't know how `printk' is implemented in the kernel, but it might
> simply not work from inside the scheduler (it seems very easy to get in a
> dead-lock situation when doing anything vaguely fancy in the scheduler).

> Stefan

by **lcku** » Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Hi Stefan

you gave me.
But my e-mali returned to me. I think the adress is changed.. :-)
Have you new adress for me to the mailing list for linux-kernel

Regards

lee

> > I tested for example in the function goodness sched.c
> > printk("this_cpu--> %d\n",this_cpu);
> > only to test it.
> > It runed no problems on the kernel 2.0.36.

> So what ?

> int x = 1;
> char y = *(char*)&x;

> will also work in most cases (but will not always put the same value in `y').
> That doesn't mean that it is *supposed* to work.
> Now, again, I have no clue whether printk is supposed to be working from
> goodness or not, but you'd better check this first.

> > Hmm... what is the trouble? I am working only this thing since one week,but
> > in vain... :-( :-(

> How about asking on the list I pointed you to earlier so that you can know
> instead of using trial and error which only tells you what `seems to be
> working' rather than `what should be working'.

> Stefan

by **lcku** » Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Now i found e-mail adress for mailing-list.. :-)

lckun

Very Computer

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?

2.2.9 is stable?