On Monday 14 August 2006 22:03, Laurent Riffard wrote:
> Le 14.08.2006 21:16, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
> > On Monday 14 August 2006 19:48, Laurent Riffard wrote:
> >> Le 14.08.2006 19:30, Rafael J. Wysocki a écrit :
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the report.
> >>>
> >>> On Monday 14 August 2006 18:49, Laurent Riffard wrote:
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> I hit a BUG while I was trying to suspend to a swap device on LVM.
> >>>> The call trace looks like this (see attached picture for detailed
> >>>> stack trace):
> >>>>
> >>>> EIP is at _raw_spin_lock
> >>>> Call Trace:
> >>>> die
> >>>> do_page_fault
> >>>> error_code
> >>>> _spin_lock_irq
> >>>> generic_unplug_device
> >>>> wait_on_bio_chain
> >>>> swap_write_image
> >>> This should be swap_write_page().
> >> right.
> >>>> swsusp_write
> >>>> pm_suspend_disk
> >>>> enter_state
> >>>> state_store
> >>>> susbsys_attr_store
> >>>> sysfs_write_file
> >>>> vfs_write
> >>>> sys_write
> >>>> sysenter_past_esp
> >>>>
> >>>> It was Linux 2.6.18-rc4-mm1 booted with:
> >>>> root=/dev/vglinux1/lvroot video=vesafb:mtrr splash=silent resume=/dev/mapper/vglinux1-lvswap init 1
> >>> Does the unpatched 2.6.18-rc4 work in this configuration?
> >> Will try.
> >
> > Well, I'm afraid it won't work.
>
> guess what? 2.6.18-rc4 worked!
Strange ...
> > Can you please try the appended patch?
>
> Ok, I'll try on 2.6.18-rc4-mm1.
>
> > Rafael
> >
> >
> > ---
> > mm/swapfile.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm1/mm/swapfile.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm1.orig/mm/swapfile.c 2006-08-13 14:54:43.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.18-rc4-mm1/mm/swapfile.c 2006-08-14 21:09:09.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -442,11 +442,12 @@ int swap_type_of(dev_t device)
> >
> > if (!(swap_info[i].flags & SWP_WRITEOK))
> > continue;
> > +
> > if (!device) {
> > spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
> > return i;
> > }
> > - inode = swap_info->swap_file->f_dentry->d_inode;
> > + inode = swap_info[i].swap_file->f_dentry->d_inode;
> > if (S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode) &&
> > device == MKDEV(imajor(inode), iminor(inode))) {
> > spin_unlock(&swap_lock);
>
> Does it mean it was mistaken on swap device ?
Yes. If your resume device is not the first swap, it won't work without
the patch.
> I did not pay attention on which swap device was online or not.
Please do when you test it. ;-)
Greetings,
Rafael
--
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
R. Buckminster Fuller
