Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected) | Date | Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:31:41 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 with the > > > debug patch (appended for completness): > > > > > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-patched-prep.log > > > > > > * dmesg output including one hibernation-resume cycle from 2.6.28-rc7 without > > > the debug patch: > > > > > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7-nopatch-prep.log > > > > As with Frans, the debug patch seems to make no difference what-so-ever. > > Yes, the cardbus regions get allocated differently, but they're fine in > > either case, and arguably (exactly as with Frans) the debug patch actually > > makes things uglier by actively getting the alignment wrong, and skipping > > cardbus setup until later. > > Hm, what about (from the copy of /proc/iomem without the patch at > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-nopatch/iomem): > > 88000000-8bffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03 > 88000000-8bffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04 > 8c000000-91ffffff : PCI Bus 0000:03 > 8c000000-8fffffff : PCI CardBus 0000:04 > > (1) Why two ranges are allocated for 0000:03 without the patch while there is > only one range with the patch: > > 88000000-880fffff : PCI Bus 0000:03 > > (copy of the file at > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/rc7-patched/iomem)? > That seems to look like a difference to me.
OK, I see why this happens.
> (2) Why are they so large without the patch while with the patch they are much > smaller (O(2^28) vs O(2^21) if I'm not mistaken)?
I don't see why this should happen, though. Even if the prefetch window is discarded, the MEM window seems to be much wider without the patch.
> (3) Why are they overlapping with the ranges for CardBus 0000:04, although > without the patch they aren't? Is that actually correct at all?
OK, I see why this happens too.
Sorry for the noise, Rafael
| |