On 29/05/18 12:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 29/05/18 11:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Catalin Marinas >>> <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 06:57:55PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>>>> Jeremy Linton (12): >>>>> drivers: base: cacheinfo: move cache_setup_of_node() >>>>> drivers: base: cacheinfo: setup DT cache properties early >>>>> cacheinfo: rename of_node to fw_token >>>>> arm64/acpi: Create arch specific cpu to acpi id helper >>>>> ACPI/PPTT: Add Processor Properties Topology Table parsing >>>>> ACPI: Enable PPTT support on ARM64 >>>>> drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables >>>>> arm64: Add support for ACPI based firmware tables >>>>> arm64: topology: rename cluster_id >>>>> arm64: topology: enable ACPI/PPTT based CPU topology >>>>> ACPI: Add PPTT to injectable table list >>>>> arm64: topology: divorce MC scheduling domain from core_siblings >>>> >>>> Queued for 4.18 (without Sudeep's latest property_read_u64 cacheinfo >>>> patch - http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180517154701.GA20281@e107155-lin; I >>>> can add it separately). >>> >>> This is now commit 37c3ec2d810f87ea ("arm64: topology: divorce MC >>> scheduling domain from core_siblings") in arm64/for-next/core, causing >>> system suspend on big.LITTLE systems to hang after shutting down the first >>> CPU: >>> >>> $ echo mem > /sys/power/state >>> PM: suspend entry (deep) >>> PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. >>> Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds) done. >>> OOM killer disabled. >>> Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.001 seconds) done. >>> Disabling non-boot CPUs ... >>> CPU1: shutdown >>> psci: CPU1 killed. >>> >> >> Is it OK to assume the suspend failed just after shutting down one CPU >> or it's failing during resume ? It depends on whether you had console >> disabled or not. > > I have no-console-suspend enabled. > It's failing during suspend, the next lines should be: > > CPU2: shutdown > psci: CPU2 killed. > ... > OK, I was hoping to be something during resume as this patch has nothing executed during suspend. Do you see any change in topology before and after this patch applied. I am interested in the output of: $ grep "" /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/topology/* >>> For me, it fails on the following big.LITTLE systems: >>> >>> R-Car H3 ES2.0 (4xCA57 + 4xCA53) >>> R-Car M3-W (2xCA57 + 4xCA53) >>> >> >> Interesting, is it PSCI based system suspend ? > > Yes it is. > > Suspend-to-idle, which doesn't offline CPUs, still works. > >From DT, I guess this platform doesn't have any idle states. Does this use genpd power domains ? I see power-domains in the DT, so asking to get more info. Do you have any out of tree patches especially if they are depending on some topology cpumasks ? >>> System supend still works fine on systems with big cores only: >>> >>> R-Car H3 ES1.0 (4xCA57 (4xCA53 disabled in firmware)) >>> R-Car M3-N (2xCA57) >>> >>> Reverting this commit fixes the issue for me. >> >> I can't find anything that relates to system suspend in these patches >> unless they are messing with something during CPU hot plug-in back >> during resume. > > It's only the last patch that introduces the breakage. > As specified in the commit log, it won't change any behavior for DT systems if it's non-NUMA or single node system. So I am still wondering what could trigger this regression. -- Regards, Sudeep
