[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812040223.54341.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:23:53 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org,
lenb@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tiwai@...e.de, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Regression from 2.6.26: Hibernation (possibly suspend) broken on Toshiba R500 (bisected)
On Wednesday, 3 of December 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Then, voila!, I'm not able to reproduce the hibernation-resume failure.
> >
> > This appears to mean that:
> > (1) The sizes of the allocations and the locations of devices in the memory
> > address space don't matter here.
> > (2) The presence and size of the prefetchable memory window don't matter here.
> > (3) What matters is the presence of non-prefetchable memory window on the
> > supposedly transparent bridge. Namely, if the window is there, resume from
> > hibernation occasionally fails (again, the size of the window and the
> > location of it in the memory address space doesn't seem to matter).
>
> That is indeed rather odd, and very interesting.
>
> > So, apparently, on this box (and I guess on Frans' too) we could avoid the
> > problem if we didn't allocate the non-prefetchable memory window in
> > pci_bus_size_cardbus(), but I guess that wouldn't be generally correct.
>
> Well, I think that what _would_ be generally correct, and actually pretty
> simple, is a rather different approach: just not sizing things behind a
> transparent bridge AT ALL, since it really shouldn't matter.
>
> So if the appended patch fixes things for you, I think this might
> potentially be the right approach.
>
> NOTE NOTE NOTE! This patch is entirely untested, as usual. I didn't check
> that this is necessarily the correct place to test for this, but it
> does make sense. IOW, it _feels_ like the rigth thing.
Yes, it _looks_ sane.
> However, even if it fixes things for you, I think we're too late in the
> 2.6.28 cycle to really apply this.
Absolutely.
> So it really does make sense to consider a root bridge and a transparent
> one to be equivalent here, since in both cases any bridge windows should
> be irrelevant. Which is why I think this patch is interesting.
>
> > Also, I would be happy to actually understand _why_ this happens.
>
> 100% agreed. I do _not_ see why it should ever matter how we set up a PCI
> bridging window - whether prefetchable or not - on a bridge that should be
> transparent. It sounds really odd. I'm wondering if there is something
> we're missing here.
>
> But apart from the existence of the bridging window, the only thing that
> it seems to affect is really just a minor layour issue. So it does seem
> like it matters. Odd.
Well, in principle it may be related to the way we handle bridges during
resume, but I really need to read some docs and compare them with the code
before I can say anything more about that. Surely, nothing like this issue has
ever been reported before.
Anyway, thanks for the patch, I'm going to try it tomorrow.
Best,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists