On Tuesday, August 03, 2010, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > On Monday 02 August 2010, 23:38:05 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, August 02, 2010, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > > > 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? > > > > It surely isn't. > > > > > 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? > > > > Well, I didn't try suspending with a number of parallel dd's with oflag=direct > > in the background, but otherwise I'm not reproducing the issue with > > the patch applied. > > Mhmhm, I have tried to reproduce my issue again, and also added some > dev_printk's around your code to understand where the delay is > happening. > > However, I have not been able to reproduce the issue (with and without > the debug output) anymore, and I am happy to report that for now your > patch helps. Good. What you might be seeing is that the patch generally changes the timing of suspend and since it is done asynchronously by default the change might trigger an independent bug that was sensitive to timing. > I'd like to keep this under observation for a little while longer, though. You can try to remove the noise produced by asynchronous suspend from the picture by dong "echo 0 > /sys/power/pm_async" (just once after bootup). Thanks, Rafael -- 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
