On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:40:39 +0200 Johannes Stezenbach <js@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:25:58PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > > > > Can you try the patch below (your changes + a warnon). That should give > > the stack trace with successful suspend-resume. > > > > acpi-cpufreq will not directly disable interrupt and call these routines. > > So, it will be interesting to see how we are ending up in this state. > > Yes, I actually had the same idea and just did it ;-) > I also found this: > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/17/674 > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > WARNING: at kernel/up.c:18 smp_call_function_single+0x45/0x60() > Hardware name: 2373Y4M > Modules linked in: ath5k mac80211 cfg80211 uhci_hcd ehci_hcd > Pid: 4139, comm: bash Not tainted 2.6.30 #8 > Call Trace: > [<c011ea0d>] warn_slowpath_common+0x60/0x90 > [<c010d86c>] ? do_drv_read+0x0/0x31 > [<c011ea4a>] warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10 > [<c013acc1>] smp_call_function_single+0x45/0x60 > [<c010d4e5>] get_cur_val+0x62/0x6c > [<c010d72f>] get_cur_freq_on_cpu+0x35/0x58 > [<c03786e9>] cpufreq_suspend+0x76/0xd9 > [<c0136c3b>] ? clockevents_notify+0x1e/0x68 > [<c02ff570>] sysdev_suspend+0x4e/0x182 > [<c013fd28>] hibernation_snapshot+0x89/0x16b > [<c013fe99>] hibernate+0x8f/0x147 > [<c013ec82>] ? state_store+0x0/0xa2 > [<c013ecd7>] state_store+0x55/0xa2 > [<c013ec82>] ? state_store+0x0/0xa2 > [<c024dff5>] kobj_attr_store+0x1a/0x22 > [<c01a7164>] sysfs_write_file+0xb4/0xdf > [<c01a70b0>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xdf > [<c0170cf2>] vfs_write+0x8a/0x12c > [<c0170e2d>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60 > [<c01028f4>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26 > ---[ end trace 1c2172bce3982a59 ]--- Right, so it's the suspend-must-disable-local-interrupts thing. Again. create_image()'s local_irq_disable(). It was wrong to call work_on_cpu() with lcoal interrupts disabled, and it's now wrong to call smp_call_function_single() with local interrupts disabled. It's just that smp_call_function_single() warns while work_on_cpu() didn't. That all explains the warning But afaik we still don't know why your machine actually failed. Perhaps it is a side-efect of emitting the warning when the console is in a weird state? So.. what to do? Possibly we could hack cpufreq to not use smp_call_function_single() if the call is to be done on the local CPU. But SMP might still be broken - if it really does want to do a cross-cpu call. Why does cpufreq need to do a cross-CPU get_cur_freq_on_cpu() call at suspend time _anyway_? Surely cpufreq knows the target CPU's frequency from its internal in-main-memory state? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
