On 21 February 2023 04:20:41 GMT, Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On 2/20/23 5:30 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 17:23 -0600, Kim Phillips wrote: >>> On 2/20/23 3:39 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: >>>> On 20 February 2023 21:23:38 GMT, Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 20.02.2023 21:31, David Woodhouse wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 17:40 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: >>>>>>> On pondělí 20. února 2023 17:20:13 CET David Woodhouse wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, 2023-02-20 at 17:08 +0100, Oleksandr Natalenko wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I've applied this to the v6.2 kernel, and suspend/resume broke on >>>>>>>>> my >>>>>>>>> Ryzen 5950X desktop. The machine suspends just fine, but on >>>>>>>>> resume >>>>>>>>> the screen stays blank, and there's no visible disk I/O. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Reverting the series brings suspend/resume back to working state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hm, thanks. What if you add 'no_parallel_bringup' on the command >>>>>>>> line? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the `no_parallel_bringup` param is added, the suspend/resume >>>>>>> works. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the testing. Can I ask you to do one further test: apply the >>>>>> series only as far as patch 6/8 'x86/smpboot: Support parallel startup >>>>>> of secondary CPUs'. >>>>>> >>>>>> That will do the new startup asm sequence where each CPU finds its own >>>>>> per-cpu data so it *could* work in parallel, but doesn't actually do >>>>>> the bringup in parallel yet. >>>>> >>>>> With patches 1 to 6 (including) applied and no extra cmdline >>>>> params added the resume doesn't work. >>>> >>>> Hm. Kim, is there some weirdness with the way AMD CPUs get their >>>> APIC ID in CPUID 0x1? Especially after resume? >>> >>> Not to my knowledge. Mario? > >I tested v9-up-to-6/8 on a Ryzen 3000 that passed your between-v6 & v7 >tree commits (ce7e2d1e046a for the parallel-6.2-rc6-part1 tag >and 17bbd12ee03 for parallel-6.2-rc6), and it, too, fails to resume >v9-up-to-6/8 after suspend. > >> Oleksandr, please could you show the output of 'cpuid' after a >> successful resume? I'm particularly looking for this part... >> >> >> $ sudo cpuid | grep -A1 1/ebx >> miscellaneous (1/ebx): >> process local APIC physical ID = 0x0 (0) >> -- >> miscellaneous (1/ebx): >> process local APIC physical ID = 0x2 (2) >> ... > >The Ryzens have a different pattern it seems: > >$ sudo cpuid | grep -A1 \(1/ebx > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x0 (0) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x1 (1) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x2 (2) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x3 (3) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x4 (4) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x5 (5) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x6 (6) >-- > miscellaneous (1/ebx): > process local APIC physical ID = 0x7 (7) > > >I tested the v7 series on Ryzen, it also fails, so >Ryzen users were last known good with those two >aforementioned commits on your tree: > >git://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git That was when it was only using (and validating) CPUID 0xB and never trusting CPUID 0x1, right?
