[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1243066902.4606.42.camel@johannes.local>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 10:21:42 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Zdenek Kabelac <zdenek.kabelac@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency at
cleanup_workqueue_thread
On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 00:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I just arrived at the same conclusion, heh. I can't say I understand
> > these changes though, the part about calling the platform differently
> > may make sense, but calling why disable non-boot CPUs at a different
> > place?
>
> Because the ordering of platform callbacks and cpu[_up()|_down()] is also
> important, at least on resume.
>
> In principle we can call device_pm_unlock() right before calling
> disable_nonboot_cpus() and take the lock again right after calling
> enable_nonboot_cpus(), if that helps.
Probably, unless the cpu_add_remove_lock wasn't a red herring after all.
I'd test, but I don't have much time today, will be travelling tomorrow
and be at UDS all week next week so I don't know when I'll get to it --
could you provide a patch and also attach it to
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13245 please? Miles (the
reporter of that bug) has been very helpful in testing before.
johannes
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists