On Tuesday, 11 of November 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > 2008/11/10 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: > > On Monday, 10 of November 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Monday, 10 of November 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:59:16PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > >> > > of recent regressions. > >> > > > >> > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > >> > > from 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > >> > > (either way). > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11989 > >> > > Subject : Suspend failure on NForce4-based boards due to chanes in stop_machine > >> > > Submitter : Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> > >> > > Date : 2008-11-03 0:28 (7 days old) > >> > > First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=c9583e55fa2b08a230c549bd1e3c0bde6c50d9cc > >> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122567187604356&w=4 > >> > > >> > Hi Rafael, > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > could you provide more informations for this, please? > >> > > >> > What is your kernel configuration? > >> > >> Available at: http://www.sisk.pl/kernel/debug/mainline/2.6.28-rc3/kitty-config > >> > >> > Do you have any binary only modules (nvidia?) loaded? > >> > >> No, I don't. > >> > >> > Is it possible to recreate the bug by e.g. just doing something like > >> > > >> > echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online > >> > >> I haven't checked (yet), I'll do that later today and let you know. > >> > >> > (or any other online cpu)? Or does it trigger any lockdep warnings? > > > > It cannot be reproduced with offlining CPU1 and it doesn't trigger any > > warnings from lockdep. > > > > However, it is reproducible by doing > > > > # echo core > /sys/power/pm_test > > > > and repeating > > > > # echo disk > /sys/power/state > > > > for a couple of times, in which case the last two lines printed to the console > > before a (solid) hang are: > > > > SMP alternatives: switching to SMP code > > Booting processor 1 APIC 0x1 ip 0x6000 > > > > So, it evidently fails while re-enabling the non-boot CPU and not during > > disabling it as I thought before. > > Can you also provide the full log including the messages when a system > goes down please? > > At first glance, "Botting processor..." as the last message looks > strange in this context. > So either wakeup_secondary_cpu()'s completion failed for some reason > (say, due to some kind of a problem that took place while disabling > non-boot cpus... I'm purely speculating here so far) or the printk's > output was not complete. > > Perhaps, redoing the test with pr_debug() in arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > enabled would shed more light... Will do tomorrow. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
