Hi Geert, On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 05:51:29PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 02:18:40PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >> On 29/05/18 12:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> On 29/05/18 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >>> System supend still works fine on systems with big cores only: > >> >>> > >> >>> R-Car H3 ES1.0 (4xCA57 (4xCA53 disabled in firmware)) > >> >>> R-Car M3-N (2xCA57) > >> >>> > >> >>> Reverting this commit fixes the issue for me. > >> >> > >> >> I can't find anything that relates to system suspend in these patches > >> >> unless they are messing with something during CPU hot plug-in back > >> >> during resume. > >> > > >> > It's only the last patch that introduces the breakage. > >> > > >> > >> As specified in the commit log, it won't change any behavior for DT > >> systems if it's non-NUMA or single node system. So I am still wondering > >> what could trigger this regression. > > > > I wonder if we're somehow giving an uninitialised/invalid NUMA configuration > > to the scheduler, although I can't see how this would happen. > > > > Geert -- if you enable CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS=y and apply the diff below > > do you see anything shouting in dmesg? > > Thanks, but unfortunately it doesn't help. > I added some debug code to print cpumask, but so far I don't see anything > suspicious. Damn, sorry for wasting your time. For the record, Catalin's been seeing boot failures under KVM on a non-big/LITTLE machine that bisect reliably to this patch, but we've also not been able to explain them. Worse, adding so much as a printk makes the problem disappear. Will -- 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
