lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [Bug #11989] Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop_machine
    Date
    On Tuesday, 11 of November 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
    > 2008/11/10 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
    > > On Monday, 10 of November 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >> On Monday, 10 of November 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:
    > >> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:59:16PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    > >> > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
    > >> > > of recent regressions.
    > >> > >
    > >> > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
    > >> > > from 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
    > >> > > (either way).
    > >> > >
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11989
    > >> > > Subject : Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop_machine
    > >> > > Submitter : Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
    > >> > > Date : 2008-11-03 0:28 (7 days old)
    > >> > > First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c9583e55fa2b08a230c549bd1e3c0bde6c50d9cc
    > >> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122567187604356&w=4
    > >> >
    > >> > Hi Rafael,
    > >>
    > >> Hi,
    > >>
    > >> > could you provide more informations for this, please?
    > >> >
    > >> > What is your kernel configuration?
    > >>
    > >> Available at: http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc3/kitty-config
    > >>
    > >> > Do you have any binary only modules (nvidia?) loaded?
    > >>
    > >> No, I don't.
    > >>
    > >> > Is it possible to recreate the bug by e.g. just doing something like
    > >> >
    > >> > echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
    > >>
    > >> I haven't checked (yet), I'll do that later today and let you know.
    > >>
    > >> > (or any other online cpu)? Or does it trigger any lockdep warnings?
    > >
    > > It cannot be reproduced with offlining CPU1 and it doesn't trigger any
    > > warnings from lockdep.
    > >
    > > However, it is reproducible by doing
    > >
    > > # echo core > /sys/power/pm_test
    > >
    > > and repeating
    > >
    > > # echo disk > /sys/power/state
    > >
    > > for a couple of times, in which case the last two lines printed to the console
    > > before a (solid) hang are:
    > >
    > > SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code
    > > Booting processor 1 APIC 0x1 ip 0x6000
    > >
    > > So, it evidently fails while re-enabling the non-boot CPU and not during
    > > disabling it as I thought before.
    >
    > Can you also provide the full log including the messages when a system
    > goes down please?
    >
    > At first glance, "Botting processor..." as the last message looks
    > strange in this context.
    > So either wakeup_secondary_cpu()'s completion failed for some reason
    > (say, due to some kind of a problem that took place while disabling
    > non-boot cpus... I'm purely speculating here so far) or the printk's
    > output was not complete.
    >
    > Perhaps, redoing the test with pr_debug() in arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
    > enabled would shed more light...

    Will do tomorrow.

    Thanks,
    Rafael


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-12 00:41    [W:0.032 / U:24.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site