Re: [PATCH bisected regression] sched: rebuild sched domains at suspend/resume

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Sun, 11 Mar 2012, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 16:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > I do agree that reverting is probably safer at this point, but can we
> > > > get agreement on this?
> > > 
> > > I agree with reverting, shoot it in the head :-) Do you want a git
> > > thingy?
> > 
> > Well, it's less a "git thingy" and more that there are tons of people
> > involved with the original commit that haven't even piped up.
> > 
> > Srivatsa, Ingo, Prashanth..
> > 
> > In fact, I notice that Prashanth doesn't even seem to have been cc'd,
> > even if he's the original reporter of the commit that gets reverted.
> > Added (see lkml)
> 
> I forget to mention my kernel boot options. I live with them for a while, so I
> just forget about it.
> "debug threadirqs i915.i915_enable_rc6=1 i915.i915_enable_fbc=1
> i915.lvds_downclock=1 crashkernel=128M"
> 
> So, "threadirqs" is a lost piece of the puzzle -- without it I cannot
> reproduce the bug.
> However, I have no idea how this is connected to sched-domains. =)

To be honest, I have no idea either. Can you figure out where the box
hangs or is it in the "silent" phase of suspend/resume?

Thanks,

	tglx