[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1603459.Pd8b1fB0HR@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:49:40 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Bruno Prémont <bonbons@...ux-vserver.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc5
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 05:12:11 PM Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 05:54:00 PM Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, but the debug check is triggering worse behavior, requiring
> >> bisecting back to the debug commit.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > So I'm wondering is anyone is working on fixing this in any way?
> >
> > It kind of sucks when this is happening on an otherwise perfectly usable
> > old(ish) machine ...
>
> The WARN() was already changed to a WARN_ONCE().
>
> So that debug check doesn't cause problems any more. If somebody is
> bisecting something else, and the WARN() is a problem for those
> intermediate kernels, then just disabling CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> should get you past that point.
>
> IOW, this really shouldn't be an issue.
>
> Does the pccard thing still not work?
Interestingly enough, if the kernel is built with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
unset, the problem with 99+% CPU load from pccardd goes away, so thanks for
the hint.
Rafael
--
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