Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:04:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm1: softlockup and suspend/resume
Message-ID: <20050208110418.GA878@elte.hu>
References: <20050204103350.241a907a.akpm@osdl.org> <200502062015.56458.rjw@sisk.pl> <20050207085728.GA17197@elte.hu> <200502071353.57660.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200502071353.57660.rjw@sisk.pl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 999
Lines: 25


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

> The warning is printed right after the image is restored (ie somewhere
> around the local_irq_enable() above, but it goes before the "PM: Image
> restored successfully." message that is printed as soon as the return
> is executed).  Definitely, less than 1 s passes between the resoring
> of the image and the warining.
> 
> BTW, I've also tried to put touch_softlockup_watchdog() before
> device_power_up(), but it didn't change much.

this is a single-CPU box, right?

could you put a printk into touch_softlockup_watchdog() and re-try your
modified tree - in which order do the messages get printed? (perhaps
also add a jiffies printout to both the lockup message and to
touch_softlockup_watchdog())

	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/