[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200804080029.31102.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:29:30 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() during suspend with 2.6.25-rc8
On Tuesday, 8 of April 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 12:11:17AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > > I know. However preempt_count is a little bit inconsistent in such cases
> > > > though.
> > > And? interrupts off beats preempt count anyways. Why did you write the
> > > patch? Was there a (incorrect) warning triggered?
> >
> > Reported at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/7/130
> >
> > BTW is also mce_init() (called from mce_resume()) guaranteed to run with
> > IRQs off?
>
> [cc rafael]
>
> The mce resume is a sysdev.
>
> sysdevs were always supposed to run completely with interrupts off. If they
> don't anymore that's some kind of higher level resume code bug which you need
> to fix there, not hack around in the low level code.
They are executed with interrupts disabled, on one CPU.
> If it does that it likely broke more code too.
>
> Obviously turning on preemption anywhere around the machine check is
> fatal because it touches CPU state and if you reschedule you could
> switch to another CPU and change or access the wrong CPU's state.
FWIW, at the point when sysdevs are resumed we are single-threaded.
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