[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1257776176.6365.8.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:16:16 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Subject: Re: Help needed: Resume problems in 2.6.32-rc, perhaps related to
preempt_count leakage in keventd
On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:02 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > ok, then my observation should not apply.
>
> I think it _IS_ releated because the worker_thread is CPU affine and
> the debug_smp_processor_id() check does:
>
> if (cpumask_equal(¤t->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(this_cpu)))
>
> which prevents that usage of smp_processor_id() in ksoftirqd and
> keventd in preempt enabled regions is warned on.
>
> We saw exaclty the same back trace with fd21073 (sched: Fix affinity
> logic in select_task_rq_fair()).
>
> Rafael, can you please add a printk to debug_smp_processor_id() so we
> can see on which CPU we are running ? I suspect we are on the wrong
> one.
I wonder if that's not intimately related to the problem I had, namely
newidle balancing offline CPUs as they're coming up, making a mess of
cpu enumeration.
-Mike
--
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