Message-ID: <2890633.q9n75klkI9@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:39:19 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	sedat.dilek@...il.com
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM List <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jan 18 [ BROKEN suspend: jbd2|acpi|pm? ]

On Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:28:55 AM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:56:53 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> >> On Friday, January 18, 2013 11:11:07 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >> >>> > Hi all,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Changes since 20130117:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Undropped tree: samung
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The powerpc tree still had a build failure.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The driver-core tree gained a build failure for which I applied a merge
> >> >>> > fix patch.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The gpio-lw tree gained a build failure so I used the version from
> >> >>> > next-20130117.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The samsung tree lost the majority of its conflicts but gained more
> >> >>> > against the arm-soc and slave-dma tree.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> From my dmesg diff-file:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +[  288.730849] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done.
> >> >>> +[  294.050498] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.04 seconds) done.
> >> >>> +[  294.097024] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ...
> >> >>> +[  314.098849] Freezing of tasks failed after 20.01 seconds (1 tasks
> >> >>> refusing to freeze, wq_busy=0):
> >> >>> +[  314.098862] jbd2/loop0-8    D ffffffff8180d780     0   297      2 0x00000000
> >> >>> +[  314.098865]  ffff880117ec5b68 0000000000000046 ffff880117ec5b08
> >> >>> ffffffff81044c29
> >> >>> +[  314.098868]  ffff88011829dc80 ffff880117ec5fd8 ffff880117ec5fd8
> >> >>> ffff880117ec5fd8
> >> >>> +[  314.098871]  ffff880119b34560 ffff88011829dc80 ffff880117ec5b68
> >> >>> ffff88011fad4738
> >> >>> +[  314.098873] Call Trace:
> >> >>> +[  314.098881]  [<ffffffff81044c29>] ? default_spin_lock_flags+0x9/0x10
> >> >>> +[  314.098885]  [<ffffffff811c63e0>] ? __wait_on_buffer+0x30/0x30
> >> >>> +[  314.098888]  [<ffffffff816b4b59>] schedule+0x29/0x70
> >> >>> +[  314.098890]  [<ffffffff816b4c2f>] io_schedule+0x8f/0xd0
> >> >>> +[  314.098892]  [<ffffffff811c63ee>] sleep_on_buffer+0xe/0x20
> >> >>> +[  314.098896]  [<ffffffff816b342f>] __wait_on_bit+0x5f/0x90
> >> >>> +[  314.098898]  [<ffffffff811c5aa1>] ? submit_bh+0x121/0x1e0
> >> >>> +[  314.098900]  [<ffffffff811c63e0>] ? __wait_on_buffer+0x30/0x30
> >> >>> +[  314.098903]  [<ffffffff816b34dc>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x7c/0x90
> >> >>> +[  314.098906]  [<ffffffff8107eb00>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x40/0x40
> >> >>> +[  314.098909]  [<ffffffff811c63de>] __wait_on_buffer+0x2e/0x30
> >> >>> +[  314.098913]  [<ffffffff8128a6a1>]
> >> >>> jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+0x1791/0x1960
> >> >>> +[  314.098917]  [<ffffffff8109269d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xbd/0x110
> >> >>> +[  314.098920]  [<ffffffff8107eac0>] ? add_wait_queue+0x60/0x60
> >> >>> +[  314.098923]  [<ffffffff81069fbf>] ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x4f/0x70
> >> >>> +[  314.098925]  [<ffffffff8128e4e8>] kjournald2+0xb8/0x240
> >> >>> +[  314.098927]  [<ffffffff8107eac0>] ? add_wait_queue+0x60/0x60
> >> >>> +[  314.098929]  [<ffffffff8128e430>] ? commit_timeout+0x10/0x10
> >> >>> +[  314.098931]  [<ffffffff8107ded0>] kthread+0xc0/0xd0
> >> >>> +[  314.098933]  [<ffffffff8107de10>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
> >> >>> +[  314.098936]  [<ffffffff816be52c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> >> >>> +[  314.098938]  [<ffffffff8107de10>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
> >> >>> +[  314.098969]
> >> >>> +[  314.098970] Restarting kernel threads ... done.
> >> >>> +[  314.099052] Restarting tasks ... done.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please, have a lot at it.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is a freezer failure while freezing kernel threads, so I don't think it's
> >> >> related to ACPI or PM directly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Does it happen on every suspend?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, I only did one S/R.
> >> >
> >> > I have built a 2nd new kernel where I pulled-in latest pm.git#linux-next.
> >> > With this kernel two S/Rs were fine - but that says not much.
> >> >
> >>
> >> After several S/Rs on the "buggy" -1 kernel I know see in my syslogs:
> >>
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  141.853828] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  141.956943] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  141.957438] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  141.957454] NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 02
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  142.060830] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
> >> Jan 18 23:50:02 fambox kernel: [  142.164639] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
> >
> > Are you worried about the "local_softirq_pending" messages?
> >
> 
> That's the only new messages I have seen after several S/Rs.

They are kind of unusual.

Anyway, they seem to be related to CPU hotplug (CPU offline), so you can try
if you can trigger them through the sysfs CPU offline/online interface.

> If you have a testcase for me to reproduce it here, I would be happy.

Do you mean the freezer-related issue?

Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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