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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 20 February 2006 16:08, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> 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).

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/