lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]
From
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> >> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi all,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Changes since 20130117:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Undropped tree: samung
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The powerpc tree still had a build failure.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I applied a merge
>> >>> > fix patch.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The gpio-lw tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
>> >>> > next-20130117.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The samsung tree lost the majority of its conflicts but gained more
>> >>> > against the arm-soc and slave-dma tree.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> From my dmesg diff-file:
>> >>>
>> >>> +[ 288.730849] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done.
>> >>> +[ 294.050498] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.04 seconds) done.
>> >>> +[ 294.097024] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ...
>> >>> +[ 314.098849] Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks
>> >>> refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
>> >>> +[ 314.098862] jbd2/loop0-8 D ffffffff8180d780 0 297 2 0x00000000
>> >>> +[ 314.098865] ffff880117ec5b68 0000000000000046 ffff880117ec5b08
>> >>> ffffffff81044c29
>> >>> +[ 314.098868] ffff88011829dc80 ffff880117ec5fd8 ffff880117ec5fd8
>> >>> ffff880117ec5fd8
>> >>> +[ 314.098871] ffff880119b34560 ffff88011829dc80 ffff880117ec5b68
>> >>> ffff88011fad4738
>> >>> +[ 314.098873] Call Trace:
>> >>> +[ 314.098881] [<ffffffff81044c29>] ? default_spin_lock_flags+0x9/0x10
>> >>> +[ 314.098885] [<ffffffff811c63e0>] ? __wait_on_buffer+0x30/0x30
>> >>> +[ 314.098888] [<ffffffff816b4b59>] schedule+0x29/0x70
>> >>> +[ 314.098890] [<ffffffff816b4c2f>] io_schedule+0x8f/0xd0
>> >>> +[ 314.098892] [<ffffffff811c63ee>] sleep_on_buffer+0xe/0x20
>> >>> +[ 314.098896] [<ffffffff816b342f>] __wait_on_bit+0x5f/0x90
>> >>> +[ 314.098898] [<ffffffff811c5aa1>] ? submit_bh+0x121/0x1e0
>> >>> +[ 314.098900] [<ffffffff811c63e0>] ? __wait_on_buffer+0x30/0x30
>> >>> +[ 314.098903] [<ffffffff816b34dc>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x7c/0x90
>> >>> +[ 314.098906] [<ffffffff8107eb00>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x40/0x40
>> >>> +[ 314.098909] [<ffffffff811c63de>] __wait_on_buffer+0x2e/0x30
>> >>> +[ 314.098913] [<ffffffff8128a6a1>]
>> >>> jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+0x1791/0x1960
>> >>> +[ 314.098917] [<ffffffff8109269d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xbd/0x110
>> >>> +[ 314.098920] [<ffffffff8107eac0>] ? add_wait_queue+0x60/0x60
>> >>> +[ 314.098923] [<ffffffff81069fbf>] ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x4f/0x70
>> >>> +[ 314.098925] [<ffffffff8128e4e8>] kjournald2+0xb8/0x240
>> >>> +[ 314.098927] [<ffffffff8107eac0>] ? add_wait_queue+0x60/0x60
>> >>> +[ 314.098929] [<ffffffff8128e430>] ? commit_timeout+0x10/0x10
>> >>> +[ 314.098931] [<ffffffff8107ded0>] kthread+0xc0/0xd0
>> >>> +[ 314.098933] [<ffffffff8107de10>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
>> >>> +[ 314.098936] [<ffffffff816be52c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>> >>> +[ 314.098938] [<ffffffff8107de10>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
>> >>> +[ 314.098969]
>> >>> +[ 314.098970] Restarting kernel threads ... done.
>> >>> +[ 314.099052] Restarting tasks ... done.
>> >>>
>> >>> Please, have a lot at it.
>> >>
>> >> This is a freezer failure while freezing kernel threads, so I don't think it's
>> >> related to ACPI or PM directly.
>> >>
>> >> Does it happen on every suspend?
>> >>
>> >
>> > No, I only did one S/R.
>> >
>> > I have built a 2nd new kernel where I pulled-in latest pm.git#linux-next.
>> > With this kernel two S/Rs were fine - but that says not much.
>> >
>>
>> After several S/Rs on the "buggy" -1 kernel I know see in my syslogs:
>>
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 141.853828] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 141.956943] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 141.957438] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 141.957454] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 142.060830] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
>> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [ 142.164639] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
>
> Are you worried about the "local_softirq_pending" messages?
>

That's the only new messages I have seen after several S/Rs.
If you have a testcase for me to reproduce it here, I would be happy.

- Sedat -

> Rafael
>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-19 01:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site