Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:22:32 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH bisected regression] sched: rebuild sched domains at suspend/resume |
| |
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 16:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > I do agree that reverting is probably safer at this point, but can we > > > > get agreement on this? > > > > > > I agree with reverting, shoot it in the head :-) Do you want a git > > > thingy? > > > > Well, it's less a "git thingy" and more that there are tons of people > > involved with the original commit that haven't even piped up. > > > > Srivatsa, Ingo, Prashanth.. > > > > In fact, I notice that Prashanth doesn't even seem to have been cc'd, > > even if he's the original reporter of the commit that gets reverted. > > Added (see lkml) > > I forget to mention my kernel boot options. I live with them for a while, so I > just forget about it. > "debug threadirqs i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 i915.i915_enable_fbc=1 > i915.lvds_downclock=1 crashkernel=128M" > > So, "threadirqs" is a lost piece of the puzzle -- without it I cannot > reproduce the bug. > However, I have no idea how this is connected to sched-domains. =)
To be honest, I have no idea either. Can you figure out where the box hangs or is it in the "silent" phase of suspend/resume?
Thanks,
tglx
| |