linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH bisected regression] sched: rebuild sched domains at suspend/resume

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:22:32 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>
cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bisected regression] sched: rebuild sched domains at
 suspend/resume

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 16:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > I do agree that reverting is probably safer at this point, but can we
> > > > get agreement on this?
> > > 
> > > I agree with reverting, shoot it in the head :-) Do you want a git
> > > thingy?
> > 
> > Well, it's less a "git thingy" and more that there are tons of people
> > involved with the original commit that haven't even piped up.
> > 
> > Srivatsa, Ingo, Prashanth..
> > 
> > In fact, I notice that Prashanth doesn't even seem to have been cc'd,
> > even if he's the original reporter of the commit that gets reverted.
> > Added (see lkml)
> 
> I forget to mention my kernel boot options. I live with them for a while, so I
> just forget about it.
> "debug threadirqs i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 i915.i915_enable_fbc=1
> i915.lvds_downclock=1 crashkernel=128M"
> 
> So, "threadirqs" is a lost piece of the puzzle -- without it I cannot
> reproduce the bug.
> However, I have no idea how this is connected to sched-domains. =)

To be honest, I have no idea either. Can you figure out where the box
hangs or is it in the "silent" phase of suspend/resume?

Thanks,

	tglx


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/