[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090111190218.GA18651@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:02:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Dieter Ries <clip2@....de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: travis@....com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc1 does not boot
* Dieter Ries <clip2@....de> wrote:
> Bisected it:
>
> ####################################################################
> 7503bfbae89eba07b46441a5d1594647f6b8ab7d is first bad commit
> commit 7503bfbae89eba07b46441a5d1594647f6b8ab7d
> Author: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
> Date: Sun Jan 4 05:18:09 2009 -0800
>
> cpumask: use work_on_cpu in acpi-cpufreq.c for drv_read and drv_write
>
> Impact: use new cpumask API to reduce stack usage
thanks, this is very helpful!
Mike, most of the work_on_cpu() patches you did so far were rather
problematic. Especially something like cpufreq can run rather early during
bootup or during suspend/resume, so i'm not sure it's correct to rely on
keventd for it.
I dont see anything particularly wrong in the commit itself - but
obviously it causes this boot hang - if the bug is not found we'll revert
it .
Also, this bit in get_cur_val():
+ if (unlikely(!alloc_cpumask_var(&cmd.mask, GFP_KERNEL)))
+ return 0;
how is that supposed to work? If we fail to allocate a cpumask we just
ignore the call silently? That cannot be right. (but has no connection to
this boot problem)
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