linux-kernel - Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 01:08:56 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [Regression] 2.6.24-git3: Major annoyance during suspend/hibernation on x86-64 (bisected)

On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 28 of January 2008, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > > No, this isn't the WARN_ON().
> > > > 
> > > >> this does have the feel of being scheduling related, but are you 
> > > >> absolutely sure about the precise identity of the patch?
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, not quite.  That's why I have verified it and found that another
> > > > patch is really responsible for the issue, namely:
> > > > 
> > > > commit 82a1fcb90287052aabfa235e7ffc693ea003fe69
> > > > Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > > > Date:   Fri Jan 25 21:08:02 2008 +0100
> > > > 
> > > >     softlockup: automatically detect hung TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE tasks
> > > 
> > > Are you getting a bunch of prints from the softlockup detector in dmesg?
> > 
> > No, I don't.  In fact, I don't get _any_ messages from it whatsoever.
> > 
> > > I wonder if the detector can detect a long timeout caused by suspend and 
> > > resume and if not is triggering false positives?
> > 
> > I'm not sure, but the code is supposed to be suspend-aware, IIRC.  However,
> > I'm seeing a similar symptom on poweroff on an SMP x86-64 box, so it may be
> > more directly related to the CPU hotplug.  I'll try to verify that.
> 
> As I expected, the delay is also observable when I do:
> 
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> 
> (it's variable, between 3 and 30 seconds).  Again, no messages appear in dmesg
> when this happens.
> 
> I suspect I'll be able to reproduce it on another x86-64 SMP machine (I'm going
> to try that later today).

FWIW, the problem is reproducible on the second machine, with the same
symptoms.  Both machines are AMD-based.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/