Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected) | Date | Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:48:35 +0100 |
| |
On Thursday 29 January 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote: > > > On Friday 05 December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > The third thing that worries me is the _very_ early occurrence of > > > > > > > > ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S3 > > > > APIC error on CPU1: 00(40) > > > > ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode > > > > > > > > Now, that "APIC error" thing is worrisome. It's worrisome for > > > > multiple reasons: > > > > > > > > - errors are never good (0x40 means "received illegal vector", > > > > whatever caused _that_) > > > > > > > > - more importantly, it seems to imply that interrupts are enabled on > > > > CPU1, and they sure as hell shouldn't be enabled at this stage! > > > > > > > > Do we perhaps have a SMP resume bug where we resume the other > > > > CPU's with interrupts enabled? > > > > > > > > - the "ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to > > > > interrupt mode" thing is from ACPI, and _also_ implies that > > > > interrupts are on. > > > > > > > > Why are interrupts enabled that early? I really don't like seeing > > > > interrupts enabled before we've even done the basic PCI resume. > > > > Quick revival of this old thread with good news. > > The "APIC error on CPU1" message is now gone! > > that was an old mystery! > > So enabling interrupts too early (possibly before the lapic, the hpet or > both are initialized properly?) can generate an APIC error message?
Hmm, I think that's something different, because the APIC error was on CPU1. Perhaps the restoration of all standard PCI config spaces before bringing CPU1 up helped here.
> > With current git head I get: > > ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S3 > > ACPI: EC: non-query interrupt received, switching to interrupt mode > > i started getting those messages too - but earlier in the cycle, during > one of the ACPI merges i think.
AFAICS, the last message only means that the ACPI EC code is now going to use interrupts instead of polling, which generally is good.
Alex, is that correct?
Thanks, Rafael
| |