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 01:00:17 +0100 |
| |
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.
(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)?
(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?
> That's what your patch (without debugging) should have resulted in too, > except you'd not have seen the "bad alignment flags" printout, of course > (but you probably would have seen the "bad alignment 0: [...]" one).
Yes, I saw that:
bad alignment flags 21200 4000000 (0) pci 0000:03:0b.0: BAR 9 bad alignment 0: [0x000000-0x3ffffff] bad alignment flags 20200 4000000 (0) pci 0000:03:0b.0: BAR 10 bad alignment 0: [0x000000-0x3ffffff]
> In fact, I'm starting to think I know why we set up the prefetch window > without the patch, and why we don't with it - because with the patch, the > PCI code ends up never seeing any valid prefetchable region for the > cardbus controller at all, so it never even bothers to try to set up a > prefetchable window. > > So in many ways, the debug patch that gets the alignment wrong (on > purpose) is really the inferior one. Plain -rc7 seems to do everything > right.
Well, I'm not sure ...
> > * diff between the two: > > > > http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc7/dmesg-rc7_nopatch-rc7_patched.diff > > Gaah. Using "-U 0" is likely the least readable form of diffs there > exists, even if it makes the diff smaller.
Sorry.
To me it's more readable this way, but well.
> > This part of the diff (+ is the patched one) seems to be particularly > > interesting to me, especially the overlapping MEM windows for 0000:00:1e.0 and > > 0000:03:0b.0 (may that be the reason for the observed failures?): > > No, those are very much on purpose. > > Device 0000:00:1e.0 is the PCI bridge that bridges to PCI bus#3, so the > MEM window is very much intentional - exactly because MMIO goes through > that PCI bridge bus to get to bus#3, which is where the cardbus controller > is. > > IOW, the topology is as follows: > - CPU is on the root bus (bus #0) > - device 00:1e.0 is the PCI bridge to bus #3 > - device 03:0b.0 is the CardBus bridge (to bus #4) > and any actual cardbus cards (if you had any) would be on that bus #4, so > they'd be named "04:xx.y". > > Now, that PCI bridge 00:1e.0 is a transparent bridge (aka "[Subtractive > decode]" in your lspci output - as compared to the other bridges that say > "[Normal decode]"), which means that you don't actually _have_ to set up > any MMIO window on them, since the bridge will forward _any_ PCI cycles > that don't get responded to by any other PCI device. > > But having an explicit window is still generally a good idea, since it > should allow the PCI bridge to pick up the PCI cycles earlier (no need to > wait to see if others respond to it), and possibly allows for better > prefetching behavior. So again, the dmesg and the PCI layout actually > looks _better_ without the hacky patch. > > So are you saying that the unpatched kernel still reliably doesn't > hibernate for you, while the (arguably _incorrect_) patched kernel > reliably does hibernate?
Yes, I am.
Thanks, Rafael
| |