On 02/02/2008, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > yeah, I was already on a half-way to check it out.
> >
> > It does fix a problem for me.
> >
> > Don't forget to take along these 2 fixes from Peter's patch:
> >
> > - fix break usage in do
On Saturday, 2 of February 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 01/02/2008, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > * Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I've observed delays from ~3 s. up to ~8 s. (out of ~20 tests) so
> > > > the 10s. delay of msleep_interruptible() might
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, I was already on a half-way to check it out.
>
> It does fix a problem for me.
>
> Don't forget to take along these 2 fixes from Peter's patch:
>
> - fix break usage in do_each_thread() { } while_each_thread().
> - fix the hotplug switch st
* Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, 1 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, 1 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The below fixes it for me..
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > - restor
On 01/02/2008, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I've observed delays from ~3 s. up to ~8 s. (out of ~20 tests) so
> > > the 10s. delay of msleep_interruptible() might be related but I'm
> > > still looking for the reason why this fix h
On Friday, 1 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 1 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > The below fixes it for me..
> > >
> > > ---
> > > - restore the old wakeup mechanism
> > > - fix break usage in do_each_thre
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've observed delays from ~3 s. up to ~8 s. (out of ~20 tests) so
> > the 10s. delay of msleep_interruptible() might be related but I'm
> > still looking for the reason why this fix helps (and what goes wrong
> > with the current code).
>
> he
On 01/02/2008, Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/02/2008, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > thanks - i cannot reproduce it on my usual suspend/resume testbox
> > because e1000 broke on it, and this is a pretty annoying regression.
> > We'll have to undo the hung-tasks
On 01/02/2008, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> thanks - i cannot reproduce it on my usual suspend/resume testbox
> because e1000 broke on it, and this is a pretty annoying regression.
> We'll have to undo the hung-tasks detection feature if it's not fixed
> quickly. (there's no point in
* Dmitry Adamushko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/02/2008, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ---
> > - restore the old wakeup mechanism
>
> and how does it change behavior, logically-wise?
>
> do we somehow miss a 'wake-up' from kthread_stop() so that its caller
> gets bloc
On 01/02/2008, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ---
> - restore the old wakeup mechanism
and how does it change behavior, logically-wise?
do we somehow miss a 'wake-up' from kthread_stop() so that its caller
gets blocked until watchdog's msleep_interruptible(1) timeouts? On
avera
On Friday, 1 of February 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The below fixes it for me..
> >
> > ---
> > - restore the old wakeup mechanism
> > - fix break usage in do_each_thread() { } while_eac_thread().
> > - fix the hotplug switch stmt, a fall-th
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The below fixes it for me..
>
> ---
> - restore the old wakeup mechanism
> - fix break usage in do_each_thread() { } while_eac_thread().
> - fix the hotplug switch stmt, a fall-through case was broken.
thanks Peter, i've picked your fix up. I hop
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 21:54 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 of January 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I can seem to reproduce this:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] cpu1]# time echo 0 > online
> >
> > real0m6.230s
> > user0m0.000s
> > sys 0m0.010s
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] c
On Thursday, 31 of January 2008, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 02:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 02:26 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation
> > > code paths (probably related
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> > > >
> > > >> this does have the feel of being s
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
absolutely sure about the precise ide
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> > >
> > >> this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
> > >> absolutely sure about the preci
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 28/01/2008, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> On 28/01/2008, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> >
> >> this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
> >> absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
> >
> > Actually, not quite. That's why I
On 28/01/2008, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation
> > > code paths (probably related to t
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
Actually, not quite. That's why I have verified it and found that another
patch is really responsible for the issu
On Sunday, 27 of January 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation
> > code paths (probably related to the disabling of nonboot CPUs), which
> > is [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*() annoy
* Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation
> code paths (probably related to the disabling of nonboot CPUs), which
> is [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*() annoying.
>
> It's 100% reproducible on my HP nx6325 and bisection ide
Hi,
2.6.24-git3 adds a 5 - 10 sec delay to the suspend and hibernation code paths
(probably related to the disabling of nonboot CPUs), which is [EMAIL
PROTECTED]&*()
annoying.
It's 100% reproducible on my HP nx6325 and bisection idendified the following
commit as the first bad one:
commit 764a9
27 matches
Mail list logo
