From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161530AbWHDWSR (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:18:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161532AbWHDWSR (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:18:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:35821 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161530AbWHDWSQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:18:16 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:17:58 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Suspend on Dell D420 Message-Id: <20060804151758.1d3dd6bd.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200608042327.38280.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <20060804162300.GA26148@uio.no> <200608042327.38280.rjw@sisk.pl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:27:38 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > On Friday 04 August 2006 18:23, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > > [Please Cc me on any followups] > > > > Hi, > > > > Suspend-to-RAM works fine on my new Dell Latitude D420 (with Core Duo) in > > 2.6.16, but it broke in 2.6.17 -- the machine suspends just fine, but when it > > resumes, the disk never spins up, the screen stays black and it just hangs. > > Bisecting shows that the following commit is where it broke: > > > > commit 78eef01b0fae087c5fadbd85dd4fe2918c3a015f > > Author: Andrew Morton > > Date: Wed Mar 22 00:08:16 2006 -0800 > > > > [PATCH] on_each_cpu(): disable local interrupts > > > > When on_each_cpu() runs the callback on other CPUs, it runs with local > > interrupts disabled. So we should run the function with local interrupts > > disabled on this CPU, too. > > > > And do the same for UP, so the callback is run in the same environment on both > > UP and SMP. (strictly it should do preempt_disable() too, but I think > > local_irq_disable is sufficiently equivalent). > > > > Also uninlines on_each_cpu(). softirq.c was the most appropriate file I could > > find, but it doesn't seem to justify creating a new file. > > > > Oh, and fix up that comment over (under?) x86's smp_call_function(). It > > drives me nuts. > > > > Applying the patch in reverse against 2.6.17 (it doesn't apply cleanly, but > > I've done what seems to be the moral equivalent) makes the suspend work > > again. > > > > Any ideas? It does not work with the latest git checkout as of today. > > I guess the patch may interfere with the CPU hotplug badly. Why do you think it would do that? > Could you please > check if you can take CPU1 offline/online? If something really wants "disable irqs on the other CPUs but not on this CPU" semantics then it would need to use smp_call_function and a direct call. But it would be a strange thing to want to do, surely?