On 12/02/2013 08:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks for the patch Corey. > I am afraid that the system does not have interrupts enabled. It uses polling > mode. > > When the error is seen, I know for a fact that in function ipmi_thread() > smi_result is SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY, > I have some logs where in busy_wait always reads as 1. Not sure if it was > ever set to 0. (ill check this again). > Ill anyway run the test using the patch that you have shared. > > b/w would it harm if we were to do to something like this ?
Unfortunately, that would start the timer unnecessarily. You don't want to start timers unnecessarily in the kernel or the power management police will come after you. The patch I sent did have this call in the non-idle portion of the kernel thread and that should have done the same thing. Plus, if you are using the kernel thread, it's going to run periodically and should kick things off again if they get stuck. I'm suspicious now that something else is going on. -corey > > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Gowda <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > index 15e4a60..e23484f 100644 > --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_si_intf.c > @@ -1008,6 +1008,7 @@ static int ipmi_thread(void *data) > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(smi_info->si_lock), flags); > busy_wait = ipmi_thread_busy_wait(smi_result, smi_info, > &busy_until); > + ipmi_start_timer_if_necessary(smi_info); > if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITHOUT_DELAY) > ; /* do nothing */ > else if (smi_result == SI_SM_CALL_WITH_DELAY && busy_wait) -- 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/
