lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)
Date
On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> > >
> > >> this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you
> > >> absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
> > >
> > > Actually, not quite. That's why I have verified it and found that another
> > > patch is really responsible for the issue, namely:
> > >
> > > commit 82a1fcb90287052aabfa235e7ffc693ea003fe69
> > > Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > > Date: Fri Jan 25 21:08:02 2008 +0100
> > >
> > > softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
> >
> > Are you getting a bunch of prints from the softlockup detector in dmesg?
>
> No, I don't. In fact, I don't get _any_ messages from it whatsoever.
>
> > I wonder if the detector can detect a long timeout caused by suspend and
> > resume and if not is triggering false positives?
>
> I'm not sure, but the code is supposed to be suspend-aware, IIRC. However,
> I'm seeing a similar symptom on poweroff on an SMP x86-64 box, so it may be
> more directly related to the CPU hotplug. I'll try to verify that.

As I expected, the delay is also observable when I do:

echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online

(it's variable, between 3 and 30 seconds). Again, no messages appear in dmesg
when this happens.

I suspect I'll be able to reproduce it on another x86-64 SMP machine (I'm going
to try that later today).

Thanks,
Rafael


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-28 17:37    [W:0.054 / U:0.312 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site