Re: Which is simpler? (Was Re: [Suspend2-devel] Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.)

["Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 2/20/06, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Monday 20 February 2006 16:08, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 2/20/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know I am bad for not reporting that earlier but swsusp was working
> > > > OK for me till about 3 month ago when I started getting "soft lockup
> > > > detected on CPU0" with no useable backtrace 3 times out of 4. I
> > > > somehow suspect that having automounted nfs helps it to fail
> > > > somehow...
> > >
> > > Disable soft lockup watchdog :-).
> >
> > Ok, I will try, but is this the permanent solution you are proposing?
>
> Certainly not.
>
> The problem is the soft lockup watchdog tends to produce false-positives
> related to the clock resume vs timer interrupt dependencies that are
> hard to trace.
>
> I used to get those on a regular basis until the timer resume on x86-64
> got fixed a month ago or so.
>
> Please try the latest -mm and see if it's not fixed there.  If not, please
> file a bug report with bugzilla (with Cc to me).
>

Latest -mm is way too big a target. Do you have a specific patches in
mind? Again my working kernel is based off tip of Linus's tree plus my
patches, not -mm.

--
Dmitry
-
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/