On Monday, 31 of October 2005 20:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
}-- snip --{
> > scheduling while atomic: swapper/0x00000001/1
> >
> > Call Trace:<ffffffff8035014a>{schedule+122} <ffffffff802e2453>{cpufreq_frequency_table_target+371}
> > <ffffffff8011d60c>{powernowk8_target+1916} <ffffffff802dfdb4>{__cpufreq_driver_target+116}
> > <ffffffff801be269>{sysfs_new_dirent+41} <ffffffff802e097e>{cpufreq_governor_performance+62}
> > <ffffffff802dec8d>{__cpufreq_governor+173} <ffffffff802df417>{__cpufreq_set_policy+551}
> > <ffffffff802df5bf>{cpufreq_set_policy+79} <ffffffff802df946>{cpufreq_add_dev+806}
> > <ffffffff802df540>{handle_update+0} <ffffffff802ae21a>{sysdev_driver_register+170}
> > <ffffffff802df106>{cpufreq_register_driver+198} <ffffffff8010c122>{init+194}
> > <ffffffff8010f556>{child_rip+8} <ffffffff8010c060>{init+0}
> > <ffffffff8010f54e>{child_rip+0}
>
> Well I can't find it. Ingo, didn't you have a debug patch which would help
> us identify where this atomic section started?
This is 100% reproducible on my box so I'll try to figure out what's up tomorrow
(unless someone else does it earlier ;-)). Now I can only say it did not happen
with 2.6.14-rc5-mm1.
> > Additionally there are some problems with freezing processes by swsusp.
Once the box has not suspended due to a process refusing to freeze, but I was
unable to trace the problem at that time. This does not seem to be readily
reproducible, however.
Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
