On 05-03 15:15, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Friday, May 03, 2013 02:07:05 PM Jonas Heinrich wrote:
> > On 05-03 01:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 02, 2013 08:32:30 PM Jonas Heinrich wrote:
> > > > On 05-02 02:45, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:55:10 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > > > > On 05/01/2013 11:51 AM, Jonas Heinrich wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, you could give me instructions on how to debug this (I'll
> > > > > > > do everything ;)) or I could ship you the Thinkpad T43. I guess
> > > > > > > this would worth the effort since this bug is somehow critical.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Best regards, Jonas
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll put together a debug patch unless I can trick Rafael into
> > > > > > doing it first...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm afraid that code has changed quite a bit since I looked at it
> > > > > last time. [Jarkko Sakkinen seems to have worked on it lately,
> > > > > CCed.]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Jonas, I wonder what happens if you drop the first hunk of the patch
> > > > > (it just uses a different register, which shouldn't matter)?  Does
> > > > > it still help then?
> > > > 
> > > > Hello Rafel, first of all, thank you for helping me out :)
> > > > You're right, the patch still solves the suspend bug, after removing
> > > > the first hunk of the patch and applying it (see attachement:
> > > > suspendfix_first_hunk_dropped.patch).
> > > > 
> > > > > If so, there are still a few things you can do to it, e.g:
> > > > > (1) drop the
> > > > > 
> > > > > -       btl     $WAKEUP_BEHAVIOR_RESTORE_CR4, %edi
> > > > > -       jnc     1f
> > > > 
> > > > Still works :) (used suspendfix_1.patch)
> > > > 
> > > > > lines,
> > > > > (2) drop the
> > > > > 
> > > > > -       btl     $WAKEUP_BEHAVIOR_RESTORE_EFER, %edi
> > > > > -       jnc     1f
> > > > > 
> > > > > lines,
> > > > 
> > > > Still works :) (used suspendfix_2.patch)
> > > > 
> > > > > (3) drop the
> > > > > 
> > > > > +       jecxz   1f
> > > > 
> > > > Still works :) (used suspendfix_3.patch)
> > > > 
> > > > > line,
> > > > > (4) drop the
> > > > > 
> > > > > +       movl    %eax, %ecx
> > > > > +       orl     %edx, %ecx
> > > > > +       jz      1f
> > > > 
> > > > At this point, the bug reoccurs (used suspendfix_4.patch)!
> > > > But that doesn't mean these lines are the only critical, because the
> > > > more minimal patch
> > > > 
> > > > @@ -119,6 +119,9 @@
> > > > 
> > > >         jnc     1f
> > > >         movl    pmode_efer, %eax
> > > >         movl    pmode_efer + 4, %edx
> > > > 
> > > > +       movl    %eax, %ecx
> > > > +       orl     %edx, %ecx
> > > > +       jz      1f
> > > > 
> > > >         movl    $MSR_EFER, %ecx
> > > >         wrmsr
> > > >  
> > > >  1:
> > > > with removing this part
> > > > 
> > > > -       movl    pmode_cr4, %eax
> > > > -       movl    %eax, %cr4
> > > > +       movl    pmode_cr4, %ecx
> > > > +       movl    %ecx, %cr4
> > > > 
> > > > also doesn't fix the issue (see suspendfix_5.patch).
> > > > 
> > > > > lines and see what the minimal patch needed for things to work again
> > > > > is.
> > > > 
> > > > So the most minimal working patch is suspendfix_3.patch.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for doing that detective work!
> > > 
> > > The only explanation of why this particular patch can help that seems
> > > viable to us at the moment is that we have a memory corruption in the
> > > code region modified by it and the patch simply changes the alignment of
> > > the instructions that don't get corrupted.
> > > 
> > > It looks like this may be verified by putting a bunch of nops into the
> > > region in question, so can you please check if the attached patch helps
> > > too?
> > 
> > Unfortunately, your attached patch doesn't seem to fix the bug.
> > Hope you still have some ideas to address this issue :)
> 
> Kind of had to experiment with this since I don't have access to
> T43. Did you already try:
> 
> - EFER handling only is reverted as it was before 73201dbe.
> - CR4 handling only is reverted as it was before 73201dbe.
Hi Jarkko,
thank you for your response!
Can you please be more specific about that instruction? I don't really
know what to do, sorry :/

@Rafael: Bug still present in kernel 3.10 final :(

- Jonas

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> /Jarkko
> 
> > 
> > - Jonas
> > 
> > > Rafael