[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0911090733150.31845@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:57:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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>,
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, 9 Nov 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> I think it _IS_ releated because the worker_thread is CPU affine and
> the debug_smp_processor_id() check does:
Hmm. We do know CPU affinity is destroyed by CPU hotplug. People have
complained about that before (for user-space processes that get moved
around due to hot-unplug/plug).
And the suspend/resume process does CPU hotplug to take down all but one
CPU. The workqueues should act on those events already, but maybe there's
a bug somewhere. None of that is new to 32-rc, though - is it?
And workqueue_cpu_callback() seems buggy. It loops over the 'workqueues'
list with no protection. Yes, we do 'stop_machine' for CPU hotplug events,
but only for the very internal one (CPU_DYING) will the CPU notifiers be
called with the machine stopped).
Hmm. I don't see any changes in kernel/cpu.c or kernel/workqueue.c that
look at all relevant. But scheduler changes could certainly matter.
Linus
--
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