On Thursday, August 26, 2010, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 18:11:22 Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 18:07:23 Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > > > On Monday 23 August 2010 14:03:40 Tejun Heo wrote: > > > > On 08/19/2010 06:23 PM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote: > > > > > It says "max_performance", I have not touched anyhting. So it has been > > > > > like that all the time. Would this explain why your patch did not show > > > > > the debug printout? > > > > > > > > Hmm... okay. Yeah, if you haven't been using IPM at all, there won't > > > > be any debug messages but at the same time the posted patch should > > > > have had the same effect as Rafael's patch as IPM path isn't traveled > > > > at all. Can you please check the followings? > > > > > [...] > > > > * Rafael's patch actually fixes the problem. If you haven't been > > > > using IPM at all, Rafael's patch and mine should behave exactly the > > > > same (ie. no IPM operation at all during suspend/resume). It could > > > > be that you're seeing a different issue. > > > > > > That next on my list... > > Just did the following: Rebased Rafaels patch to 2.6.35 and tried it > again (with added prints to make sure I am running the right one) and > did >10 suspend to ram / resume cycles under I/O write load. All of > them worked fine (for comparison: your patch resulted in RO HDD at > first attempt). > > (I had some extra prints around the suspend functions changed in > Rafael's patch, tried with and without, no change--works flawlessly.) > > What do you make of this? I think my patch actually does more than the Tejun's one. I need to have a deeper look at them both. I'm still testing the Tejun's patch on my system where I was able to reproduce the problem, but so far it's been working. 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
