* x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 [not found] <20180404165559.4cd0c12c@canb.auug.org.au> @ 2018-04-04 7:50 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-04 7:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-04-06 22:41 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-04 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 488 bytes --] Hi! > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. Any ideas? I guess bisecting on next would not be easy? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-04 7:50 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-04 7:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-04-04 8:49 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-06 22:41 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek 1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-04-04 7:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > Hi! > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. > > Any ideas? I guess bisecting on next would not be easy? Well, why would it be different from a bisect on any other git repo? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-04 7:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-04-04 8:49 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 12:25 ` update-binfmts breaking suspend was " Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-04 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 980 bytes --] On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > > version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. > > > > Any ideas? I guess bisecting on next would not be easy? > > Well, why would it be different from a bisect on any other git repo? Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not parent of next-20180307. But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it should work. Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? Best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-04 8:49 ` Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-05 12:25 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 20:30 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-05 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki, jikos Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2017 bytes --] On Wed 2018-04-04 10:49:05, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Wed 2018-04-04 09:58:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > >> Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > >> trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > > > > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > > > version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. > > > > > > Any ideas? I guess bisecting on next would not be easy? > > > > Well, why would it be different from a bisect on any other git repo? > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > parent of next-20180307. > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > should work. > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? Hmm. I tested on T40p. That works ok, so at least some 32bit machines do work. Hmm, and my test scripts were wrong. Failure is not a hang, as they expect, but... machine locks up, but does not suspend, and then continues running after a delay.. [ 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 =0): [ 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 Did the rework of freezing start already in -next? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-05 12:25 ` update-binfmts breaking suspend was " Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-05 20:30 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [not found] ` <SN4PR2101MB073673B12998428D48DA62E5CBBA0@SN4PR2101MB0736.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-05 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki, jikos, mawilcox, raven, akpm Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2226 bytes --] Hi! > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > should work. > > > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? > > Hmm. I tested on T40p. That works ok, so at least some 32bit machines > do work. > > Hmm, and my test scripts were wrong. > > Failure is not a hang, as they expect, but... machine locks up, but > does not suspend, and then continues running after a delay.. > > [ 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 > =0): > [ 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 > > Did the rework of freezing start already in -next? Hmm, so I did git bisect, and it pointed to: commit 7cb03edf112fea6ead2fcd3c5fd639756d6d114b Author: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> 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 <mawilcox@microsoft.com> Acked-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend was Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-05 20:30 ` Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-05 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [not found] ` <SN4PR2101MB073673B12998428D48DA62E5CBBA0@SN4PR2101MB0736.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-04-05 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek Cc: jikos, mawilcox, raven, akpm, sfr, Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Thorsten Leemhuis On Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:30:45 PM CEST Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Well, v4.16-rc4 is parent of v4.16-rc6, but next-20180304 is not > > > parent of next-20180307. > > > > > > But you are right that if I do bisect between -linus and -next, it > > > should work. > > > > > > Anyway, does s2ram work for you in -next? Are you testing 32bit? > > > > Hmm. I tested on T40p. That works ok, so at least some 32bit machines > > do work. > > > > Hmm, and my test scripts were wrong. > > > > Failure is not a hang, as they expect, but... machine locks up, but > > does not suspend, and then continues running after a delay.. > > > > [ 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 > > =0): > > [ 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 > > > > Did the rework of freezing start already in -next? > > Hmm, so I did git bisect, and it pointed to: > > commit 7cb03edf112fea6ead2fcd3c5fd639756d6d114b > Author: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> > 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 <mawilcox@microsoft.com> > Acked-by: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton > <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Well, let's tell Thorsten about this (CCed). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <SN4PR2101MB073673B12998428D48DA62E5CBBA0@SN4PR2101MB0736.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>]
[parent not found: <20180406144355.GA20605@bombadil.infradead.org>]
* Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend [not found] ` <20180406144355.GA20605@bombadil.infradead.org> @ 2018-04-11 4:30 ` Matthew Wilcox 2018-04-11 6:09 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2018-04-11 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pavel Machek, Rafael J. Wysocki, jikos, raven, akpm, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel, linux-pm, Rafael J. Wysocki Ping? On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 07:43:55AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > Failure is not a hang, as they expect, but... machine locks up, but > > > does not suspend, and then continues running after a delay.. > > > > > > [ 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 > > > =0): > > > [ 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 > > > > > > Did the rework of freezing start already in -next? > > > > Hmm, so I did git bisect, and it pointed to: > > > > commit 7cb03edf112fea6ead2fcd3c5fd639756d6d114b > > Author: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> > > 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. > > Umm. I'm not familiar with the freezer. Help me out here ... > > I see the message coming from here: > > pr_err("Freezing of tasks %s after %d.%03d seconds " > "(%d tasks refusing to freeze, wq_busy=%d):\n", > wakeup ? "aborted" : "failed", > elapsed_msecs / 1000, elapsed_msecs % 1000, > todo - wq_busy, wq_busy); > > and then backtracking in that function, I see this: > > for_each_process_thread(g, p) { > if (p == current || !freeze_task(p)) > continue; > > in freeze_task(), I see this: > > if (!(p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)) > fake_signal_wake_up(p); > else > wake_up_state(p, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > which does this: > > if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) { > signal_wake_up(p, 0); > unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); > } > > which does this: > > static inline void signal_wake_up(struct task_struct *t, bool resume) > { > signal_wake_up_state(t, resume ? TASK_WAKEKILL : 0); > } > > which does this: > > void signal_wake_up_state(struct task_struct *t, unsigned int state) > { > set_tsk_thread_flag(t, TIF_SIGPENDING); > /* > * TASK_WAKEKILL also means wake it up in the stopped/traced/killable > * case. We don't check t->state here because there is a race with it > * executing another processor and just now entering stopped state. > * By using wake_up_state, we ensure the process will wake up and > * handle its death signal. > */ > if (!wake_up_state(t, state | TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)) > kick_process(t); > } > > Now I don't know why we only wake interruptible tasks here and not killable > tasks. I've trawled git history all the way back to 2.6.12-rc2, and the > reasoning behind signal_wake_up() (as it originally was) is lost to pre-git > history. > > So ... why do we only wake interruptible tasks on suspend? Why not wake > uninterruptible tasks too? > > if (lock_task_sighand(p, &flags)) { > - signal_wake_up(p, 0); > + signal_wake_up_state(p, TASK_WAKEKILL); > unlock_task_sighand(p, &flags); > } > > or why do we consider tasks waiting uninterruptibly to block freezing? > Is it because they're (probably) waiting for I/O and we want the I/O > to complete? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: update-binfmts breaking suspend 2018-04-11 4:30 ` update-binfmts breaking suspend Matthew Wilcox @ 2018-04-11 6:09 ` Pavel Machek 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-11 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, jikos, raven, akpm, sfr, linux-next, linux-kernel, linux-pm, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 321 bytes --] Hi! > Ping? See the thread... akpm pointed out fix for autofs, and the problem is gone with newer -next kernels, so I assume the fix fixes it :-). Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 2018-04-04 7:50 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek 2018-04-04 7:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2018-04-06 22:41 ` Pavel Machek 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Pavel Machek @ 2018-04-06 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List, Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux-pm mailing list, Rafael J. Wysocki [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 714 bytes --] On Wed 2018-04-04 09:50:47, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > Please do not add any v4.18 destined stuff to your linux-next included > > trees until after v4.17-rc1 has been released. > > On thinkpad x60, suspend does not suspend at all with this -next > version. Previous versions suspended/resumed fine but broke networking. I bisected networking breakage to c16add24522547bf52c189b3c0d1ab6f5c2b4375 which is slightly weird. But it modifies ACPI in strange way, so maybe not that weird. Networking breakage is still in next-20180406. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html [-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-04-11 6:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <20180404165559.4cd0c12c@canb.auug.org.au> 2018-04-04 7:50 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek 2018-04-04 7:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-04-04 8:49 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 12:25 ` update-binfmts breaking suspend was " Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 20:30 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-05 22:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [not found] ` <SN4PR2101MB073673B12998428D48DA62E5CBBA0@SN4PR2101MB0736.namprd21.prod.outlook.com> [not found] ` <20180406144355.GA20605@bombadil.infradead.org> 2018-04-11 4:30 ` update-binfmts breaking suspend Matthew Wilcox 2018-04-11 6:09 ` Pavel Machek 2018-04-06 22:41 ` x32 suspend failuer in Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 4 Pavel Machek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).