On Wednesday 28 July 2010, 23:50:09 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Saturday, July 10, 2010, Tejun Heo wrote: > > On 07/10/2010 08:50 AM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > > >> I have a box where this problem is kind of reproducible, but it happens _very_ > > >> rarely. Also I can't reproduce it on demand running suspend-resume in a tight > > >> loop. Are you able to reproduce it more regurarly? > > > > > > For me it is much more reproducible. If I run multiple direct writing > > > dd-s to the disk in question I trigger it rather reliably (~75% or > > > higher). See the attached script from an earlier email. > > > Maybe that helps triggering your case more reliabl, too? > > > That didn't help, but the appended patch fixes the problem for me. <snip> Sorry for taking ages. Vacation and catching up after it are to blame, as is me forgetting to build a proper initrd... Thanks for the patch! It certainly changes behaviour, however, in a very strange way for me. With your patch my machine does not suspend to ram anymore (a simple echo mem > /proc/sys/state blocks), and nothing happens in dmesg if there is a lot of write I/O while suspending. (A number of parallel dd's with oflag=direct) If I stop the I/O, the system eventually goes into suspend to RAM. However, that takes a while, after the I/O has stopped, and also from "Preparing system for suspend" log entry until it is actually done. Is this intentional? Let me know how I can debug this further! Ideally I'd like to be able to suspend the machine under I/O load, too. (E.g. during a compile job.) Can you reproduce this at your end, too? Many thanks, Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
