[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801281231.51545.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:31:50 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> >
> >> this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
> >> absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
> >
> > Actually, not quite. That's why I have verified it and found that another
> > patch is really responsible for the issue, namely:
> >
> > commit 82a1fcb90287052aabfa235e7ffc693ea003fe69
> > Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:02 2008 +0100
> >
> > softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
>
> Are you getting a bunch of prints from the softlockup detector in dmesg?
No, I don't. In fact, I don't get _any_ messages from it whatsoever.
> I wonder if the detector can detect a long timeout caused by suspend and
> resume and if not is triggering false positives?
I'm not sure, but the code is supposed to be suspend-aware, IIRC. However,
I'm seeing a similar symptom on poweroff on an SMP x86-64 box, so it may be
more directly related to the CPU hotplug. I'll try to verify that.
Thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists