Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:22:08 +0100 |
| |
On Monday 20 February 2006 16:08, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 2/20/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > > > > I know I am bad for not reporting that earlier but swsusp was working > > > OK for me till about 3 month ago when I started getting "soft lockup > > > detected on CPU0" with no useable backtrace 3 times out of 4. I > > > somehow suspect that having automounted nfs helps it to fail > > > somehow... > > > > Disable soft lockup watchdog :-). > > Ok, I will try, but is this the permanent solution you are proposing?
Certainly not.
The problem is the soft lockup watchdog tends to produce false-positives related to the clock resume vs timer interrupt dependencies that are hard to trace.
I used to get those on a regular basis until the timer resume on x86-64 got fixed a month ago or so.
Please try the latest -mm and see if it's not fixed there. If not, please file a bug report with bugzilla (with Cc to me).
Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |