Re: 2.6.23-mm1

Rafael J. Wysocki
2007-10-15T20:24:42Z

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