[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091115233703.GA6090@nowhere>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:37:06 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: GPF in run_workqueue()/list_del_init(cwq->worklist.next) on
resume (was: Re: Help needed: Resume problems in 2.6.32-rc, perhaps
related to preempt_count leakage in keventd)
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 06:33:00PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> @@ -145,6 +255,7 @@ static void __queue_work(struct cpu_work
> {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + debug_work_activate(work);
> spin_lock_irqsave(&cwq->lock, flags);
> insert_work(cwq, work, &cwq->worklist);
Since you are doing that from insert_wq_barrier too, which
endpoint is also insert_work(), why not put debug_work_activate
there instead? Or may be you really prefer to do this outside
the spinlock (which in off-case is zero-overhead). May be that
can sleep or?
--
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