From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1759260AbbA3B0x (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:26:53 -0500
Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:63897 "HELO
	v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with SMTP id S1755020AbbA3B0w (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:26:52 -0500
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Bruno =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Pr=E9mont?= <bonbons@linux-vserver.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@inktank.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.19-rc5
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 02:49:40 +0100
Message-ID: <1603459.Pd8b1fB0HR@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzWGCO16v3NL7SqgBnQQrwpwCTvFZR=+3x89Hg0KzJtxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+55aFxNk9OCXz7nvKXpRBc0Z85NLXPNkRm1yJf4-KAGB4pHRA@mail.gmail.com> <1861286.x5DC37NGWz@vostro.rjw.lan> <CA+55aFzWGCO16v3NL7SqgBnQQrwpwCTvFZR=+3x89Hg0KzJtxg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 05:12:11 PM Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 05:54:00 PM Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>
> >> Yeah, but the debug check is triggering worse behavior, requiring
> >> bisecting back to the debug commit.
> >
> > Yes, it is.
> >
> > So I'm wondering is anyone is working on fixing this in any way?
> >
> > It kind of sucks when this is happening on an otherwise perfectly usable
> > old(ish) machine ...
> 
> The WARN() was already changed to a WARN_ONCE().
> 
> So that debug check doesn't cause problems any more. If somebody is
> bisecting something else, and the WARN() is a problem for those
> intermediate kernels, then just disabling CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
> should get you past that point.
> 
> IOW, this really shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Does the pccard thing still not work?

Interestingly enough, if the kernel is built with CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP
unset, the problem with 99+% CPU load from pccardd goes away, so thanks for
the hint.

Rafael