* Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like softlockup is not happy with suspend/resume:
Does it happen while writing out state to disk? I've attached a patch
for touch_softlockup_watchdog() below - but i think what we really need
is another mechanism. I'm wondering what the primary reason for the
lockup-detection is - did swsuspend stop the the softlockup threads?
Ingo
--- linux/kernel/softlockup.c.orig
+++ linux/kernel/softlockup.c
@@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, tim
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, print_timestamp) = 0;
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct task_struct *, watchdog_task);
+void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
+{
+ per_cpu(timestamp, _smp_processor_id()) = jiffies;
+}
+
/*
* This callback runs from the timer interrupt, and checks
* whether the watchdog thread has hung or not:
@@ -66,7 +71,7 @@ static int watchdog(void * __bind_cpu)
while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
msleep_interruptible(HZ);
- per_cpu(timestamp, this_cpu) = jiffies;
+ touch_softlockup_watchdog();
}
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
--- linux/include/linux/sched.h.orig
+++ linux/include/linux/sched.h
@@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ extern unsigned long cache_decay_ticks;
#ifdef CONFIG_DETECT_SOFTLOCKUP
extern void softlockup_tick(struct pt_regs *regs);
extern void spawn_softlockup_task(void);
+extern void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void);
#else
static inline void softlockup_tick(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
@@ -186,6 +187,9 @@ static inline void softlockup_tick(struc
static inline void spawn_softlockup_task(void)
{
}
+static inline void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void)
+{
+}
#endif
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
