[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804110122470.3896@jikos.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:25:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
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 Thu, 10 Apr 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > So, any idea why mce_resume() -> mce_init() -> debug_smp_processor_id()
> > triggers the warning? Apparently preempt_count is zero, irqs_disabled()
> > returns false, and cpumask_of_cpu() is not equal to current->cpus_allowed.
> We are single-threaded because we 'unplugged' all the other cpus... but
> I'm not sure the BUG() code realises that...
That's unrelated, right? The real problem here is that irqs_disabled()
call inside debug_smp_processor_id() signalized that interrupts are
enabled, and that (correctly) triggered the bug.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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