On Monday, 15 October 2007 18:09, Mark Gross wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 11:32:40PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, 12 October 2007 06:31, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.23/2.6.23-mm1/ > > > > > > - I've been largely avoiding applying anything since rc8-mm2 in an attempt > > > to stabilise things for the 2.6.23 merge. > > > > > > But that didn't stop all the subsystem maintainers from going nuts, with > > > the usual accuracy. We're up to a 37MB diff now, but it seems to be working > > > a bit better. > > > > I get many traces similar to the one below from it (w/ hotfixes): > > > > WARNING: at /home/rafael/src/mm/linux-2.6.23-mm1/arch/x86_64/kernel/smp.c:397 smp_call_function_mask() > > This is from : WARN_ON(irqs_disabled()) in the cmp_call_function_mask > processor_idle.c is registering a acpi_processor_latency_notify > > my code changed the notifier call from blocking_notifier_call_chain to > srcu_notifier_call_chain, because dynamic creation of notifier chains at > runtime where easier with the srcu_notifier_call_chain than the > blocking_notifier_call_chain. > > As dynamic creation of PM_QOS parameters are no longer needed I can > change the notifiers back to match what was in lanency.c > > However; looking at the call tree differences between > blockin_notifier_call_chain and srcu_notifier_call_chain I cannot see a > difference in irq enabling / disabling. I'm not confident this will > address this yet. Well, you can send me a patch to check. :-) > I'll change the PM_QOS params patch to use blocking notifiers and test > on a 64bit boot and see what happens. I've been needing to setup my > x86_64 dev box for a while now anyway. OK, thanks. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
