lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Revert 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking call")?
From
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
<rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/2013 8:41 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
>>
>> 0) Summary: ever since I tried running (release candidates of) v3.11 on
>> the two working i686s I still have lying around I ran into issues on
>> resuming from suspend. Reverting 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792
>> ("select: use freezable blocking call") resolves those issues.
>>
>> 1) Resuming from suspend on i686 on (release candidates of) v3.11 and
>> later triggers issues like:
>> traps: systemd[1] general protection ip:b738e490 sp:bf882fc0 error:0
>> in libc-2.16.so[b731c000+1b0000]
>>
>> and
>> traps: rtkit-daemon[552] general protection ip:804d6e5 sp:b6cb32f0
>> error:0 in rtkit-daemon[8048000+d000]
>>
>> Once I hit the systemd error I can only get out of the mess that the
>> system is at that point by power cycling it.
>>
>> 2) I bisected that issue to commit
>> 9745cdb36da83aeec198650b410ca06304cf792 ("select: use freezable blocking
>> call"). The, rather impressive, bisect log is pasted at the end of this
>> message. It took 23 builds to pinpoint this issue in the v3.10..v3.11
>> range! Sadly, I have no clue why that commit triggers this issue.
>>
>> 3) Reverting that commit on top of v3.12-rc7 gets me a system that
>> resumes without issues. (That revert needed one trivial context change.
>> Note that I haven't actually tried v3.12-rc7 plain. But v3.12-rc6 and
>> earlier also had this issue, so I'm sure the revert did the trick for
>> v3.12-rc7.)
>>
>> 4) Should this commit be reverted? Or is there a better fix?
>
>
> In short, yes, it should.
>
> I've already queued up a revert of something very similar and I'm going to
> revert this one too.

To be clear, that's queued for 3.12 which is releasing really soon
now. Is that correct?

josh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-30 01:01    [W:0.070 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site