On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:27 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday 09 November 2009, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 15:02 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ok, then my observation should not apply. > > > > > > I think it _IS_ releated because the worker_thread is CPU affine and > > > the debug_smp_processor_id() check does: > > > > > > if (cpumask_equal(¤t->cpus_allowed, cpumask_of(this_cpu))) > > > > > > which prevents that usage of smp_processor_id() in ksoftirqd and > > > keventd in preempt enabled regions is warned on. > > > > > > We saw exaclty the same back trace with fd21073 (sched: Fix affinity > > > logic in select_task_rq_fair()). > > > > > > Rafael, can you please add a printk to debug_smp_processor_id() so we > > > can see on which CPU we are running ? I suspect we are on the wrong > > > one. > > > > I wonder if that's not intimately related to the problem I had, namely > > newidle balancing offline CPUs as they're coming up, making a mess of > > cpu enumeration. > > Very likely. What did you do to fix it? You don't really wanna know. In 31 with newidle enabled, the below fixed it. It won't fix 32, though it might cure the resume problem. diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c index 1b59e26..6e71932 100644 --- a/kernel/sched.c +++ b/kernel/sched.c @@ -4032,7 +4049,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long flags; struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask); - cpumask_setall(cpus); + cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask); /* * When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle @@ -4195,7 +4212,7 @@ load_balance_newidle(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, struct sched_domain *sd) int all_pinned = 0; struct cpumask *cpus = __get_cpu_var(load_balance_tmpmask); - cpumask_setall(cpus); + cpumask_copy(cpus, cpu_online_mask); /* * When power savings policy is enabled for the parent domain, idle _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
