Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-rc6 regression - hang on resume | From | Soeren Sonnenburg <> | Date | Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:18:59 +0000 |
| |
On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 15:53 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 13 of April 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sat 2008-04-12 09:27:42, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 23:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > On Fri 2008-04-04 08:31:29, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 01:22 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > The following report is on the current list of known regressions > > > > > > from 2.6.24. Please verify if the issue is still present in the > > > > > > mainline. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10319 > > > > > > Subject : 2.6.25-rc6 regression - hang on resume > > > > > > Submitter : Soeren Sonnenburg <kernel@nn7.de> > > > > > > Date : 2008-03-25 04:44 (10 days old) > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The machine resumes and display stays black using s2ram -f -p > > > > > (blindly typing reboot etc on keyboard does what is expected). However > > > > > display comes back on 2.6.24. > > > > > > > > Could you get us any debugging output from s2ram? Or maybe even strace > > > > it in both working and broken case, and comparing them? (You may want > > > > to disable randomization so that results are comparable). > > > > > > I did on 2.6.24 > > > > > > strace -ff s2ram >s2ram24.trace 2>&1 > > > > > > and .25 > > > > > > ???strace -ff s2ram >s2ram25.trace 2>&1 > > > > > > with the .24 bringing the display back and .25 not. Files are here > > > > > > http://nn7.de/debugging/s2ram24.trace.bz2 > > > ???http://nn7.de/debugging/s2ram25.trace.bz2 > > > > Hmm: > > > > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000:00:1b.0/irq > > > > contains 21 in one case and 22 in another... as do other > > interrupts. Is that expected? Can you post /proc/interrupts for both > > versions? > > > > Hmm, big part of trace is: > > > > vm86old(0xb7f76c8c) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not > > implemented) > > vm86old(0xb7f76c8c) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not > > implemented) > > > > ...I wonder why we do it so many times? > > > > And here's the difference. .25 says: > > > > vm86old(0xb809ac8c) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not > > implemented) > > vm86old(0xb809ac8c) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not > > implemented) > > Error: something went wrong performing real mode call > > open("/sys/class/graphics", > > O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_LARGEFILE|O_DIRECTORY|0x80000) = -1 ENOENT (No > > such file or directory) > > open("/dev/tty", O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE) = 6 > > ioctl(6, KDGKBTYPE, 0xbfae8887) = 0 > > > > ...can you perhaps add printf-s to s2ram to find out what changed? > > Well, that looks suspiciously similar to > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10155 .
Hmmhh the only difference is that I don't have a core 2 duo but only a core 1 duo but hmmmhh the flag down there looks like it does nx, or should I see something like nx enabled in dmesg?
processor : 0 vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 14 model name : Genuine Intel(R) CPU 1600 @ 2.16GHz stepping : 8 cpu MHz : 1000.000 cache size : 2048 KB physical id : 0 siblings : 2 core id : 0 cpu cores : 2 fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 6 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx constant_tsc bts pni monitor vmx est tm2 xtpr bogomips : 4333.82 clflush size : 64
Anyway I will try noexec=off ...
Soeren
| |