Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:07:00 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm1: softlockup and suspend/resume
Message-ID: <20050205190700.GA2323@elte.hu>
References: <20050204103350.241a907a.akpm@osdl.org> <200502051411.16194.rjw@sisk.pl> <20050205143511.GA28656@elte.hu> <200502051548.26729.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200502051548.26729.rjw@sisk.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 936
Lines: 22


* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> > I've attached a patch for touch_softlockup_watchdog() below - but i think
> > what we really need is another mechanism. I'm wondering what the primary
> > reason for the lockup-detection is - did swsuspend stop the the softlockup
> > threads? 
> 
> If my understanding is correct, the time between suspend (ie the
> creation of the image) and resume (ie the resotration of the image) is
> considered as spent in the kernel, so it triggers softlockup as soon
> as its threads are woken up (is that correct, Pavel?).

ah, ok. Could you try my patch and add touch_softlockup_watchdog() to
the resume code (before interrupts are re-enabled)?

	Ingo
-
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/