On Monday, 7 of February 2005 09:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > ah, ok. Could you try my patch and add touch_softlockup_watchdog() to
> > > the resume code (before interrupts are re-enabled)?
> >
> > I did:
> >
> > ---
> > /home/rafael/tmp/kernel/testing/linux-2.6.11-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c
> > 2005-02-05 20:57:03.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c 2005-02-06
> > 19:07:39.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -871,6 +869,7 @@
> > restore_processor_state();
> > restore_highmem();
> > device_power_up();
> > + touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> > local_irq_enable();
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> > and it still complains, but the call trace is now different:
>
> could you describe the timings a bit more - how long it takes to do the
> resume, and when does the watchdog print out its warning.
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.
> Is it a single warning only, and once the resume succeeds, the watchdog
> doesnt complain anymore, correct?
Yes.
Greets,
Rafael
--
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
-
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/
