Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:14:20AM +1100, matthew green:
> 
>    On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 08:58:35PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>    
>    > the bug fix may have helped - but it hasn't fixed everything :-(
>    
>    I'm not surprized.  Did you attempt to analyze the hang?
> 
> 
> it's not hung.  it's still able to act as an NFS server... so i haven't
> bothered rebooting.  and because it's busy, i haven't gone poking again
> yet... last i knew hardclock() called softintr_schedule(softclock_si)
> but the softclock intr is never seen.. hardclock() does this at 100hz as
> one would expect but once it's losing, softclock() itself is never
> called again...

if the processor were stuck in a trap handler, say data miss (fill, spill,
...), that'd be at a higher priority than a interrupt like hard/soft clock,
so it'd never be serviced.  right?