On Saturday 30 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 19:56 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday 25 January 2010, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > > Rafael J. Wysocki пишет: > > > > On Saturday 23 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:19 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >>> On Friday 22 January 2010, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > > >>>> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 10:42 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> Probably we have multiple option. but I don't think GFP_NOIO is good > > > >>>>>>>> option. It assume the system have lots non-dirty cache memory and it isn't > > > >>>>>>>> guranteed. > > > >>>>>>> Basically nothing is guaranteed in this case. However, does it actually make > > > >>>>>>> things _worse_? > > > >>>>>> Hmm.. > > > >>>>>> Do you mean we don't need to prevent accidental suspend failure? > > > >>>>>> Perhaps, I did misunderstand your intention. If you think your patch solve > > > >>>>>> this this issue, I still disagree. but If you think your patch mitigate > > > >>>>>> the pain of this issue, I agree it. I don't have any reason to oppose your > > > >>>>>> first patch. > > > >>>>> One question. Have anyone tested Rafael's $subject patch? > > > >>>>> Please post test result. if the issue disapper by the patch, we can > > > >>>>> suppose the slowness is caused by i/o layer. > > > >>>> I did. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> As far as I could see, patch does solve the problem I described. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Does it affect speed of suspend? I can't say for sure. It seems to be > > > >>>> the same. > > > >>> Thanks for testing. > > > >> I'll test that too, soon. > > > >> Just to note that I left my hibernate loop run overnight, and now I am > > > >> posting from my notebook after it did 590 hibernate cycles. > > > > > > > > Did you have a chance to test it? > > > > > > > >> Offtopic, but Note that to achieve that I had to stop using global acpi > > > >> hardware lock. I tried all kinds of things, but for now it just hands > > > >> from time to time. > > > >> See http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14668 > > > > > > > > I'm going to look at that later this week, although I'm not sure I can do more > > > > than Alex about that. > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > Rafael, > > > If you can point to where one may insert callback to be called just before handing control to resume kernel, > > > it may help... > > > > Generally speaking, I'd do that in a .suspend() callback of one of devices. > > > > If that's inconvenient, you can also place it in the .pre_restore() platform > > hibernate callback (drivers/acpi/sleep.c). It only disables GPEs right now, > > it might release the global lock as well. > > > > The .pre_restore() callback is executed after all devices have been suspended, > > so there's no danger any driver would re-acquire the global lock after that. > > > Well, I did that very late, very close to image restore. > Still, it didn't work (It hung after the resume, in the kernel that was > just restored, on access to the hardware lock, or in other words in same > way) > > Here is what I did: I saw the patch in the bug entry (http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14668). Please see the comments in there. Please also test the patch I attached and let's use the bug entry for the tracking of this issue from now on. Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
