linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-mm1

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]

Message-Id: <200710152240.03543.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:40:02 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	mgross@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-mm1

On Monday, 15 October 2007 18:09, Mark Gross wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 11:32:40PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 12 October 2007 06:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23/2.6.23-mm1/
> > > 
> > > - I've been largely avoiding applying anything since rc8-mm2 in an attempt
> > >   to stabilise things for the 2.6.23 merge.
> > > 
> > >   But that didn't stop all the subsystem maintainers from going nuts, with
> > >   the usual accuracy.  We're up to a 37MB diff now, but it seems to be working
> > >   a bit better.
> > 
> > I get many traces similar to the one below from it (w/ hotfixes):
> > 
> > WARNING: at /home/rafael/src/mm/linux-2.6.23-mm1/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c:397 smp_call_function_mask()
> 
> This is from : WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) in the cmp_call_function_mask
> processor_idle.c is registering a acpi_processor_latency_notify 
> 
> my code changed the notifier call from blocking_notifier_call_chain to
> srcu_notifier_call_chain, because dynamic creation of notifier chains at
> runtime where easier with the srcu_notifier_call_chain than the
> blocking_notifier_call_chain.  
> 
> As dynamic creation of PM_QOS parameters are no longer needed I can
> change the notifiers back to match what was in lanency.c
> 
> However; looking at the call tree differences between
> blockin_notifier_call_chain and srcu_notifier_call_chain I cannot see a
> difference in irq enabling / disabling.  I'm not confident this will
> address this yet.

Well, you can send me a patch to check. :-)

> I'll change the PM_QOS params patch to use blocking notifiers and test
> on a 64bit boot and see what happens.  I've been needing to setup my
> x86_64 dev box for a while now anyway.

OK, thanks.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/