Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:30:12 -0500 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.) |
| |
On 2/20/06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > 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). >
Latest -mm is way too big a target. Do you have a specific patches in mind? Again my working kernel is based off tip of Linus's tree plus my patches, not -mm.
-- Dmitry - 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/
| |