Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 -- inconsistent {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage -- pm-hibernate/9940 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] | Date | Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:29:30 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, 19 of December 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > It looks like the swsusp_save() calls drain_all_pages() , which calls > > > on_each_cpu() .. On return on_each_cpu() unconditionally enables > > > interrupts so the rest of the resume process has interrupt enable > > > (which , it looks like, shouldn't happen) and then you get the lockdep() > > > warning due to the above.. > > > > > > Not sure if this has been found already, or not? > > Hmmm... It will unconditionally enable interrupts regardless how we call > this. We could explicity save and restore interrrupts in > swsusp_save() I guess. Why is swsusp_save() disabling interrupts?
Actually, it's called with interrupts disabled, because it's job is to create the hibernation image. At this point everything is off except for the CPU running swsusp_save().
> > > Should drain_all_pages() really be drain_local_pages() ? > > > > It looks like it was drain_local_pages, but the following patch > > > > page-allocator-clean-up-pcp-draining-functions.patch > > > > Changes that in -mm .. I added Christoph Lameter to the CC since it's > > his patch .. > > We could reexport drain_local_pages() again but then I do not understand > why we would only drain the pages of this processor and not of all other > processors as well. It seems that software suspend intend was to flush > them all right?
Well, not exactly. We are on one CPU at this point, the others have been disabled.
| |