lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: Resume from swsusp stopped working with 2.6.14 and 2.6.15-rc1
    Date
    Hi,

    On Tuesday, 22 of November 2005 19:47, Pavel Machek wrote:
    > > > > > > >> Bjorn, does it help if you change TIMEOUT in kernel/power/process.c to 30 * HZ?
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Funny, I thought that 6 seconds is way too much. Bjorn, please let us
    > > > > > > > know if 30 seconds timeout helps.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > It does.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Ouch, yes, that's clear. It is stopping tasks during *resume*... So I
    > > > > > guess it gets wrong timing by design. Question is what to do with
    > > > > > that. Could we make keyboard driver pause the boot until it is done
    > > > > > resetting hardware? Or we can increase the timeout... would 10 seconds
    > > > > > be enough?
    > > > >
    > > > > Well, I think 10 seconds when suspending is a nice and resonable
    > > > > number. For resume though I think we should wait much longer, maybe
    > > > > even indefinitely - the only thing that timeout achieves is makes
    > > > > people fsck because the system can't recover from that state.
    > > >
    > > > I see your point, but it does not seem we need that changes this far. Your
    > > > patch is better, because we *could* hit that during suspend, just after
    > > > keyboard hotplug... right? And it will make resume faster for affected people.
    > >
    > > I disagree here. While my patch is a right thing to do (and as you
    > > know is already merged in mainline) it is not "better". Swsusp should
    > > not rely on the other subsystems being "nice" to it. Even with my
    > > patch there still could be moments when some thread is not suspended
    > > in 6 seconds when resuming causing unneeded resume failure and
    > > subsequent fsck.
    > >
    > > Please consider merging the patch below.
    >
    > Well, I do not think this problem will surface again. It is first
    > failure in pretty long time. If it happens again, I'll take your
    > patch.

    If so, could you please make it printk() a message after the timeout has
    passed? This way the user will know what's going on at least.

    Greetings,
    Rafael
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-22 23:17    [W:2.368 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site