[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730231702.GA15520@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:17:02 -0400
From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@....com>,
Eric Sesterhenn <eric.sesterhenn@...xperts.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Warning during suspend with MS-7310 mainboard
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:37:22AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 02:16:29 am Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:38:22AM -0500, Langsdorf, Mark wrote:
> > > I'll look into it.
> > >
> > > First time I've had this bug reported, though.
> > >
> >
> > It's happening because the suspend code runs with interrupts disabled,
> > and the powerpc workaround we do in the cpufreq suspend hook
> > calls the drivers ->get method.
> >
> > powernow-k8's ->get does an smp_call_function_single
> > which needs interrupts enabled
>
> Yeah, I was confused: my patch changed set_cpus_allowed_ptr() to
> an smp_call_function. If the latter is a bad idea with irqs disabled, the
> former certainly was...
Right, the only reason reverting your change 'fixes' the problem is
that we don't have a BUG() in set_cpus_allowed_ptr to check for interrupts
being disabled.
hmm, does adding an equivalent check make sense?
cpufreq seemed to cope just fine when we used set_cpus_allowed_ptr,
but we might have just got lucky. As we were suspending in this path,
interaction from the scheduler is minimal. Other callers might not
be so lucky?
Dave
--
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