From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754640AbXLHPZq@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754640AbXLHPZq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:25:46 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751462AbXLHPZi
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:25:38 -0500
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:57888 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751009AbXLHPZh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 8 Dec 2007 10:25:37 -0500
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:24:47 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: broken suspend (sched related) [Was: 2.6.24-rc4-mm1]
Message-ID: <20071208152447.GA30270@elte.hu>
References: <20071204211701.994dfce6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <47595A0A.5000502@gmail.com> <20071207151150.GB24254@elte.hu> <20071207175134.GA18916@elte.hu> <475A5188.6070809@gmail.com> <20071208083939.GD30997@elte.hu> <475A629C.7010408@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <475A629C.7010408@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean
X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3
	-1.5 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/08/2007 09:39 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Unfortunately no change here.
> > 
> > could you try to revert this change:
> > 
> > -int softlockup_thresh = 10;
> > +int softlockup_thresh = 60;
> > 
> > i.e. change the value of softlockup_thresh back to 10. You should be 
> > able to tweak this runtime as well, without patching the kernel:
> > 
> >   echo 10 > /proc/sys/kernel/softlockup_thresh
> 
> What should have this changed? I can't see any difference.

it changes the wakeup frequency of the softlockup thread.

i'm wondering why it had no effect now - the new code is in essence a 
NOP over what we had. Could you send me your current (modified) 
kernel/softlockup.c code?

	Ingo