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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 20 February 2006 21:15, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 2/20/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 15:54 +0100, Pavel Machek 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 :-).
> >
> > You do know that message is harmless and doesn't actually do anything
> > right?  It's just warning you that the kernel allowed something to hog
> > the CPU without rescheduling for a LONG time.
> 
> Well, if that is harmless I am not sure what you'd call harmful ;) 
> because right after this message the box hangs solid and I have to
> push and hold power button to power it off and start again.

Now this means you get the "softlockup watchdog" message because of a bug that
hangs your box and is actually detected by the watchdog.  I didn't realize
that before, so please disregard my previous messages.

Have you tried to boot the box with "init=/bin/bash" and suspend?  [You'll have
to mount /proc and /sys, and do "swapon -a" manually before
"echo disk > /sys/power/state".]

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/