[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071208152447.GA30270@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:24:47 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2007 09:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately no change here.
> >
> > could you try to revert this change:
> >
> > -int softlockup_thresh = 10;
> > +int softlockup_thresh = 60;
> >
> > i.e. change the value of softlockup_thresh back to 10. You should be
> > able to tweak this runtime as well, without patching the kernel:
> >
> > echo 10 > /proc/sys/kernel/softlockup_thresh
>
> What should have this changed? I can't see any difference.
it changes the wakeup frequency of the softlockup thread.
i'm wondering why it had no effect now - the new code is in essence a
NOP over what we had. Could you send me your current (modified)
kernel/softlockup.c code?
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists