linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq

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]

Message-Id: <1246915230.11545.61.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:20:30 -0700
From:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Michael Witten <mfwitten@...il.com>,
	Johannes Stezenbach <js@...21.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 14:29 -0700, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday 04 July 2009, Michael Witten wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:39:59 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote
> > (http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-acpi/msg22661.html):
> > 
> > > In fact, we need to do this entire thing differently.
> > > 
> > > The basic problem is that cpufreq_suspend() is a sysdev thing, so it will 
> > > always be called with iterrupts off and *only* for CPU0.  So, it looks like
> > > the majority of things we do there is just unnecessary (at least).
> > 
> > What's the status? This bug is driving me nuts.
> 
> Unfortunately, still unresolved.

Looked at this a bit more from acpi cpufreq angle.

But, I feel the patch that Johannes had here
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0906.2/00335.html
is the right fix as we do the same saving and restoring of flags on SMP
when cpu==this_cpu. This change will make code in UP same as that in SMP
with 1 CPU active.

We can avoid the driver->get call from cpufreq_suspend for the drivers
that do not do any freq changes in their suspend methods. But, then we
will hit this same problem in cpufreq_resume() path and there we do want
to check for adjust_jiffies for all drivers as long as CONSTANT_LOOPS is
not set.

Thanks,
Venki

--
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/