[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906231857450.2767@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:58:43 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kerneloops.org report for the week of June 14 2009
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The long term solution for the issue at hand is to clean up the suspend-resume
> support in cpufreq so that it doesn't do stupid things like calling
> smp_call_function_single() with interrupts disabled, but that requires someone
> (I can do it, but I need to dig through the cpufreq code for this purpose) to
> figure out how to fix it.
>
> I'm not quite sure if there's an acceptable short term solution, though.
>
> In principle we can do
>
> local_irq_save()
> ...
> local_irq_restore()
>
> around each sysdevs ->susend() and ->resume() in addition to checking the
> status of interrupts. Would that work?
Well not really, if the function enables interrupts you run into the
same issue (interrupt service routine calls ktime_get()) again.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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