Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:36:02 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Regression in 2.6.25-rc3: s2ram segfaults before suspending |
| |
* Klaus S. Madsen <ksm@hjernemadsen.org> wrote:
> So while I'm fairly confident in that I bisected correctly, the number > of attempts I had to go through to get a reliable result, and the fact > that I cannot make the problem go away by reverting the current code > to something similar, counts quite a lot against me. > > However I'm 100% confident that the problem appears between > cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a and > 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119, which is something like 16 > commits. I have been at both points in the tree at least 2 times, and > confirmed that cf8fa920cb4271f17e0265c863d64bea1b31941a worked for me, > and 925596a017bbd045ff711b778256f459e50a119 didn't.
my guess would be that it's this commit that causes it:
| commit 6c3866558213ff706d8331053386915371ad63ec | Author: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> | Date: Wed Jan 30 13:32:55 2008 +0100 | | x86: move all asm/pgtable constants into one place
> But I'm a bit puzzled by the fact that I'm aparently the only one how > have encountered the problem? Maybe it's only a problem if one also > uses PAE? (Thats just a wild guess to explain why I'm the only one > seeing this).
PAE activates NX on 32-bit. So we probably had an NX regression that got fixed by the side-effects of one of the unifications. Does it start working if you disable NX via the noexec=off boot option?
Ingo
| |