Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265446AbVBETtB (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:49:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269785AbVBETtA (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:49:00 -0500 Received: from gprs214-21.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.21]:54727 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265448AbVBETrh (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Feb 2005 14:47:37 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 20:47:22 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm1: softlockup and suspend/resume Message-ID: <20050205194722.GB1547@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20050204103350.241a907a.akpm@osdl.org> <200502051411.16194.rjw@sisk.pl> <20050205143511.GA28656@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050205143511.GA28656@elte.hu> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 856 Lines: 21 Hi! > > It looks like softlockup is not happy with suspend/resume: > > Does it happen while writing out state to disk? 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? swsusp likes all threads stopped. You can mark threads PF_NOFREEZE and swsusp will leave them alone. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl! - 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/