Jens Axboe wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17 2009, Alan Jenkins wrote: > >> Jens Axboe wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 17 2009, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 17 2009, Alan Jenkins wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, 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 2.6.29. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know >>>>>>> (either way). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13058 >>>>>>> Subject : First hibernation attempt fails >>>>>>> Submitter : Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> Date : 2009-04-10 10:58 (7 days old) >>>>>>> First-Bad-Commit: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=1faa16d22877f4839bd433547d770c676d1d964c >>>>>>> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123928022321917&w=2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Alan, is this still a problem? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Yup. Still present in v2.6.30-rc2-195-g9f76208. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Given the somewhat odd nature of the bug and the requirements to trigger >>>> it, how confident are you in the bisection results? >>>> >>>> I'll try and reproduce it here. >>>> >>>> >>> I can't reproduce it here. It seems very odd that an ENOMEM would happen >>> as a consequence of the rq allocation change, it doesn't really change >>> the allocation at all (and it'll never return -ENOMEM). >>> >>> Can you please recheck the git bisect results. It'd be nice if the >>> hibernation failure would actually log where the problem occured... >>> >>> >> Once I found the right conditions (wireless disabled and a specific KDE >> session), it was 100% reproducible. >> >> Reverting your commit fixed the problem. I can do another test of that >> if you like. >> >> My _bisection_ was not absolute, rock-solid certain because I only found >> the right conditions half-way through. There's always the possibility I >> would get different results if I redid it properly, from the start. But >> I have some experience of this and took care to re-validate my upper & >> lower bounds. >> > > Well, if you can and have the time, reproducing the bisect results with > the same conditions all the way through would definitely help. > I can do that, yes. As another datapoint: I tried blindly applying the commit to 2.6.29. The resulting kernel was able to hibernate fine the first time. I'm going to be annoying and try something slightly different. In theory, I should be able to find the "first bad commit" where cherry-picking 1faa16d22 causes a problem. > Or perhaps Rafael can suggest adding some printk()'s to catch where that > ENOMEM is coming from. That would help, right now I basically have zero > clue on where this might be. > -- 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
