On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:44:32 AM Fabio Baltieri wrote: > Hi Viresh, > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:22:37AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Hi Fabio, > > > > Sorry for waking up very late :) > > > > The reason why i am starting this thread again is due to problem > > reported by Joseph, > > with latest linux-next/master branch (which contains few big patches > > from me :) ): > > > > Reboot is giving following to him: > > > > * Will now halt > > [ 193.756068] Disabling non-boot CPUs... > > [ 193.760088] BUG: scheduling while atomic: halt/780/0x00000002 > > [ 193.765845] Modules linked in: brcmfmac brcmutil > > [ 193.770613] [<c0014990>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf8) from [<c0049510>] > > (__schedule_bug+0x44/0x5c) > > [ 193.779548] [<c0049510>] (__schedule_bug+0x44/0x5c) from [<c04fa320>] > > (__schedule+0x688/0x6ec) > > [ 193.788206] [<c04fa320>] (__schedule+0x688/0x6ec) from [<c04fa75c>] > > (schedule_preempt_disabled+0x24/0x34) > > [ 193.797811] [<c04fa75c>] (schedule_preempt_disabled+0x24/0x34) from > > [<c04f916c>] (__mutex_lock_slowpath+0x170/0x34c) > > [ 193.808367] [<c04f916c>] (__mutex_lock_slowpath+0x170/0x34c) from > > [<c04f9354>] (mutex_lock+0xc/0x24) > > [ 193.817554] [<c04f9354>] (mutex_lock+0xc/0x24) from [<c04f1cdc>] > > (unregister_cpu_notifier+0xc/0x24) > > [ 193.826640] [<c04f1cdc>] (unregister_cpu_notifier+0xc/0x24) from > > [<c033a8a4>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x118/0x614) > > [ 193.836866] [<c033a8a4>] (cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x118/0x614) from > > [<c033747c>] (__cpufreq_governor+0x58/0xc0) > > [ 193.846737] [<c033747c>] (__cpufreq_governor+0x58/0xc0) from > > [<c0339104>] (__cpufreq_remove_dev.clone.7+0x58/0x320) > > [ 193.857207] [<c0339104>] (__cpufreq_remove_dev.clone.7+0x58/0x320) > > from [<c04f7958>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x8c/0x9c) > > [ 193.867850] [<c04f7958>] (cpufreq_cpu_callback+0x8c/0x9c) from > > [<c0044f4c>] (notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x84) > > [ 193.877623] [<c0044f4c>] (notifier_call_chain+0x44/0x84) from > > [<c0026e24>] (__cpu_notify+0x2c/0x48) > > [ 193.886704] [<c0026e24>] (__cpu_notify+0x2c/0x48) from [<c04f1b08>] > > (_cpu_down+0xb0/0x23c) > > [ 193.895004] [<c04f1b08>] (_cpu_down+0xb0/0x23c) from [<c00270ec>] > > (disable_nonboot_cpus+0x68/0x104) > > [ 193.904089] [<c00270ec>] (disable_nonboot_cpus+0x68/0x104) from > > [<c0034fbc>] (kernel_power_off+0x24/0x48) > > [ 193.913688] [<c0034fbc>] (kernel_power_off+0x24/0x48) from > > [<c0035810>] (sys_reboot+0x104/0x1e0) > > [ 193.922517] [<c0035810>] (sys_reboot+0x104/0x1e0) from [<c000e520>] > > (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x30) > > > > > > And the crash log show this patch of yours somewhere :) > > It looks like the two patches clashed togher quite badly... :-) > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:22:37AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > [...] > > First question: Is this patch still required? Because following patch > > from me is > > sending a STOP/START to governors on cpu hot-[un]plug ? > > > > commit dbcb63407c095af73f3464767e00902cdee55e8b > > Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sat Jan 12 05:14:39 2013 +0000 > > > > cpufreq: Notify governors when cpus are hot-[un]plugged > > > > For me, the answer is NO. > > I confirm that your patch handles correctly the problem solved by this > one so I agree on dropping mine. > > Rafael, this is screwing up a bit on bisection for cpu hotplug problems > so I'm sending a v7 with the cleanup on first patch and this one > dropped if you are ok with rebasing your pm-cpufreq-next. Let me know > if you prefer me to just send a revert + cleanup patch instead. I've dropped the $subject one already and please post an incremental fix on top of the first one in your series. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
