On 14.02.2014 18:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 06:02:32PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote: >> One thing I likely should do is to reinstall the exact same laptop with 64bit >> kernel and userspace... maybe only 64bit kernel first... and make sure on my >> side that this does not show up on 64bit, too. I took the word of reporters for >> that (and the impression that otherwise many more people would have complained). > > Yeha, I'm going to try and install some 32bit userspace on a usb > harddisk I've got and see if I can boot my Core2 laptop from that to try > and reproduce. > > But all that is probably going to be Monday :/ > *sigh* Already Thursday... Peter, did you get to reproduce this locally? Unfortunately I had some interruption and have not more Information than on last Friday (which is that the same hw but 64bit kernel does not show it). Meanwhile I wonder whether it would make sense to push the following (or more?) to stable for 3.13.y: 1) 16824255394f55adf31b9a96a9965d8c15bdac4c x86, acpi, idle: Restructure the mwait idle routines 2) 7e98b71920464b8d15fa95c74366416cd3c88861 x86, idle: Use static_cpu_has() for CLFLUSH workaround, add barriers 3) 8cb75e0c4ec9786b81439761eac1d18d4a931af3 sched/preempt: Fix up missed PREEMPT_NEED_RESCHED folding 4) 215393bc1fab3d61a5a296838bdffce22f27ffda sched/preempt/x86: Fix voluntary preempt for x86 1+2 would be to avoid touching 3 too much and looked to be improvements on their own. 3+4 would be cherry-picks if not for some fuzz 2. I saw a few more things labelled preempt between 3.13 and current HEAD but am not sure whether or which of those are strictly required. Namely some fixing to preempt_enable_no_resched() mis-usage and maybe one fixing an issue of ftrace locking up. -Stefan 3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
