Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance duringsuspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 01/02/2008, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> 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(10000) timeouts? On 
> average, it would take +-5 sec. and might explain the first 
> observation of Ravael -- "...adds a 5 - 10 sec delay..." (although, 
> lately he reported up to +30 sec. delays).
> 
> (/me goint to also try reproducing it later today)

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 debugging features that _add_ bugs)

	Ingo
--
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/