From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 22:30:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20180405203045.GA23313@amd> References: <20180404165559.4cd0c12c@canb.auug.org.au> <20180404075047.GB9342@amd> <20180404084905.GA12303@amd> <20180405122503.GA28446@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180405122503.GA28446@amd> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , jikos@suse.cz, mawilcox@microsoft.com, raven@themaw.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux-pm mailing list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > parent of next-20180307. > >=20 > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > should work. > >=20 > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? >=20 > Hmm. I tested on T40p. That works ok, so at least some 32bit machines > do work. >=20 > Hmm, and my test scripts were wrong. >=20 > Failure is not a hang, as they expect, but... machine locks up, but > does not suspend, and then continues running after a delay.. >=20 > [ 35.038766] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. > [ 35.051246] Freezing user space processes ... > [ 55.060528] Freezing of tasks failed after 20.009 seconds (1 tasks > refusing to freeze, wq_busy > =3D0): > [ 55.060552] update-binfmts D 0 2727 1 0x80000004 > [ 55.060576] Call Trace: > [ 55.060600] __schedule+0x37a/0x7e0 > [ 55.060618] schedule+0x29/0x70 > [ 55.060635] autofs4_wait+0x359/0x7a0 > [ 55.060653] ? wait_woken+0x70/0x70 > [ 55.060668] autofs4_mount_wait+0x4a/0xe0 > [ 55.060684] ? autofs4_mount_wait+0x4a/0xe0 > [ 55.060699] autofs4_d_automount+0xe0/0x200 > [ 55.060715] ? autofs4_d_automount+0xe0/0x200 >=20 > Did the rework of freezing start already in -next? Hmm, so I did git bisect, and it pointed to: commit 7cb03edf112fea6ead2fcd3c5fd639756d6d114b Author: Matthew Wilcox Date: Thu Mar 29 10:15:17 2018 +1100 autofs4: use wait_event_killable This playing with signals to allow only fatal signals appears to predate the introduction of wait_event_killable(), and I'm fairly sure that wait_event_killable is what was meant to happen here. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180319191609.23880-1-willy@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox Acked-by: Ian Kent Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell =09 --=20 (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blo= g.html --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlrGh3UACgkQMOfwapXb+vJPpACcC/lSAgo2k/KIXNu0X1yLkcUV Dh4Aniex/LbnMIfOsdz+lAobvWq/F+Dh =Al6e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--