Re: 2.6.11-rc3-mm1: softlockup and suspend/resume

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Monday, 7 of February 2005 09:57, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> 
> > > ah, ok. Could you try my patch and add touch_softlockup_watchdog() to
> > > the resume code (before interrupts are re-enabled)?
> > 
> > I did:
> > 
> > --- /home/rafael/tmp/kernel/testing/linux-2.6.11-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c	2005-02-05 20:57:03.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux-2.6.11-rc3-mm1/kernel/power/swsusp.c	2005-02-06 19:07:39.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -871,6 +869,7 @@
> >  	restore_processor_state();
> >  	restore_highmem();
> >  	device_power_up();
> > +	touch_softlockup_watchdog();
> >  	local_irq_enable();
> >  	return error;
> >  }
> > 
> > and it still complains, but the call trace is now different:
> 
> could you describe the timings a bit more - how long it takes to do the
> resume, and when does the watchdog print out its warning.

The warning is printed right after the image is restored (ie somewhere
around the local_irq_enable() above, but it goes before the
"PM: Image restored successfully." message that is printed as soon as
the return is executed).  Definitely, less than 1 s passes between
the resoring of the image and the warining.

BTW, I've also tried to put touch_softlockup_watchdog() before
device_power_up(), but it didn't change much.

> Is it a single warning only, and once the resume succeeds, the watchdog
> doesnt complain anymore, correct?

Yes.

Greets,
Rafael


-- 
- Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
- That depends a good deal on where you want to get to.
		-- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"