From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: pm-hibernate : possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:26:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090408122613.GD18581@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200904081247.08712.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 16:35:53 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:56 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Looks like this will be fixed by Andrew's work-on-cpu-in-own-thread
> > > patch which I just put out the pull request for.
> >
> > Would it make sense to teach it about a short-circuit like:
> >
> > work_on_cpu() {
> >
> > if (cpumask_weight(current->cpus_allowed) == 1 &&
> > smp_processor_id() == cpu)
> > return do_work_right_here();
>
> Does that happen much? I guess put a counter in and see?
a temporary tracepoint or trace_printk() for the workqueue tracer
would also tell this, without any long-term overhead (it will be
easy to remove it).
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Rusty Russell" <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"Frédéric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: pm-hibernate : possible circular locking dependency detected
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:26:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090408122613.GD18581@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200904081247.08712.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
* Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 April 2009 16:35:53 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-04-07 at 13:56 +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > Looks like this will be fixed by Andrew's work-on-cpu-in-own-thread
> > > patch which I just put out the pull request for.
> >
> > Would it make sense to teach it about a short-circuit like:
> >
> > work_on_cpu() {
> >
> > if (cpumask_weight(current->cpus_allowed) == 1 &&
> > smp_processor_id() == cpu)
> > return do_work_right_here();
>
> Does that happen much? I guess put a counter in and see?
a temporary tracepoint or trace_printk() for the workqueue tracer
would also tell this, without any long-term overhead (it will be
easy to remove it).
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-08 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-05 9:53 pm-hibernate : possible circular locking dependency detected Ming Lei
2009-04-05 10:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-05 13:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-06 0:55 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 0:55 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 13:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-06 13:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-06 14:24 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 15:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-06 15:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-06 14:24 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 14:37 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2009-04-06 15:20 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 18:42 ` Alan Stern
2009-04-06 18:42 ` [linux-pm] " Alan Stern
2009-04-06 19:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-06 19:58 ` [linux-pm] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-04-07 8:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-07 8:43 ` [linux-pm] " Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-06 15:20 ` Gautham R Shenoy
2009-04-06 14:37 ` Alan Stern
2009-04-07 4:26 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-07 4:26 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-07 7:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-08 3:17 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-08 12:26 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-04-08 12:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-08 23:45 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-08 23:45 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-09 4:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-09 14:45 ` Ming Lei
2009-04-09 14:45 ` Ming Lei
2009-04-09 4:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-08 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-08 3:17 ` Rusty Russell
2009-04-07 7:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-04-05 13:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-05 10:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-04-05 9:53 Ming Lei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090408122613.GD18581@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.