[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121917460.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 19:24:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@...il.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel 5.3.x, 5.2.2+: VMware player suspend on 64/32 bit
guests
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top
Woody,
On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote:
> I have added a timeout counter in __synchronize_hardirq().
> At the bottom I have converted while(inprogress); to while(inprogress
> && timeout++ < 100);
>
> That is bypassing the suspend lockup problem. On both 32-bit and
> 64-bit VMs the countdown is triggered by sync of irq9.
So ACPI triggered an interrupt, which got already forwarded to a CPU, but
it is not handled. That's more than strange.
> Which probably means that there is some issue in ACPI handler and
> synchronize_hardirq() is stuck on it?
The ACPI handler is not the culprit. This is either an emulation bug or
something really strange. Can you please use a WARN_ON() if the loop is
exited via the timeout so we can see in which context this happens?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists