From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753144AbdLKOJg (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:09:36 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:52967 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752886AbdLKOJd (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 09:09:33 -0500 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,391,1508828400"; d="scan'208";a="17292338" Message-ID: <1513001367.2981.11.camel@intel.com> Subject: Re: Linux 4.15-rc2: Regression in resume from ACPI S3 From: Zhang Rui To: Linus Torvalds , Pavel Machek Cc: Andrew Lutomirski , Thomas Gleixner , Jarkko Nikula , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , the arch/x86 maintainers Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:09:27 +0800 In-Reply-To: References: <2809506.pL8kVbvXcY@aspire.rjw.lan> <1578405.51lzoSX1jh@aspire.rjw.lan> <20171209103325.GA13867@amd> <20171209220110.GA11496@amd> <20171210162305.GA10159@amd> <20171210185638.GA10363@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 12:30 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > Confirmed, revert fixes it. You see how it moves > > fix_processor_context > > around #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 block? And how people forget 32-bit > > machines exist? Aha. > Yeah, people do. > > Andy? > > > > > Which brings me to .. various people do automated testing of > > kernel. Testing 32-bit kernel for boot, and both 32-bit and 64-bit > > for > > boot and suspend would be very nice. The last item is not hard, > > either: > > > > sudo rtcwake -l -m mem -s 5 > > > > ...should take 10 seconds or so. > I'm told 0day does *some* suspend/resume testing, but I think it's > pretty limited, partly because the kinds of machines it primarily > works on don't really support suspend/resume at all. currently, we're running suspend test on 1 platform only, with 64 bit kernel. suspend test will be enabled on more platforms (laptops) in next two weeks. I will check why it does not find the first regression introduced by ca37e57bbe0c ("x86/entry/64: Add missing irqflags tracing to native_load_gs_index()"). > I'm also not sure > just how many of those machines are 32-bit at all.. for this, I suppose it can be reproduced if we use 32-bit kernel and rootfs, right? Then it's easier to enable this in 0Day. thanks, rui > > But I'm adding Zhang Rui to the cc, to see if my recollection is > right. > > Because you're right, more suspend/resume automated testing would be > good to have. And yes, people test mainly 64-bit these days. > > Also, I'm not even sure what the 0day rules are for just plain > mainline. I don't tend to see a lot of breakage reports, even though > I'd expect to. This came in from the x86 trees (and those do their > own > tests too, but probably not suspend/resume either), but it hit my > tree > fairly soon after going into the x86 -tip trees. > >             Linus