From: Dave Jones
Date: Mon Aug 14 2006 - 17:21:02 EST
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:13:38PM +0200, Ben B wrote:
> Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> uttered the following thing:
> > > > > [ 734.156000] [<e01f2665>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x2b5/0x310 [cpufreq_ondemand]
> > > >
> > > > This makes no sense at all, because in -mm __create_workqueue doesn't
> > > > call lock_cpu_hotplug().
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure this was from a tree with -mm1 applied ?
> > >
> > > Definitely 2.6.18-rc4-mm1, and I've done a clean rebuild + removal of
> > > all modules under /lib/modules beforehand.
> > It's a real mystery. Andrew ?
> This seems to be specific to the ondemand governor - I just tried with
> conservative, and alternating it with performance, with no problems, but
> as soon as I loaded ondemand, the message appeared. It seems to fire off
> the message as soon as I either set the governor to ondemand, or revert
> it from ondemand to something else. But going from, eg performance to
> conservative, wont give the message, even with ondemand loaded.
on-demand is unique in the sense that its the only governor that
creates a workqueue.
> I wonder if this might also be related to my 1.83GHz cpu only being set
> to a maximum of 1.33GHz via cpufreq? cpuinfo_max_freq is correct, but
> scaling_max_freq is wrong. Though doing "cat cpuinfo_max_freq >
> scaling_max_freq" has fixed it up, it should be correct already.
That's come up a lot lately. I'm still of the opinion that something
changed in acpi that's the explanation for this.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/