> 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. :-)
