Re: INFO: possible circular locking dependency atcleanup_workqueue_thread

[Johannes Berg]

On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 00:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > I just arrived at the same conclusion, heh. I can't say I understand
> > these changes though, the part about calling the platform differently
> > may make sense, but calling why disable non-boot CPUs at a different
> > place?
> 
> Because the ordering of platform callbacks and cpu[_up()|_down()] is also
> important, at least on resume.
> 
> In principle we can call device_pm_unlock() right before calling
> disable_nonboot_cpus() and take the lock again right after calling
> enable_nonboot_cpus(), if that helps.

Probably, unless the cpu_add_remove_lock wasn't a red herring after all.
I'd test, but I don't have much time today, will be travelling tomorrow
and be at UDS all week next week so I don't know when I'll get to it --
could you provide a patch and also attach it to
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13245 please? Miles (the
reporter of that bug) has been very helpful in testing before.

johannes

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part