From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161483AbWHDV2d (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:28:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161488AbWHDV2d (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:28:33 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:18105 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161483AbWHDV23 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Aug 2006 17:28:29 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: "Steinar H. Gunderson" Subject: Re: Suspend on Dell D420 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 23:27:38 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton References: <20060804162300.GA26148@uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20060804162300.GA26148@uio.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608042327.38280.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Could you please check if you can take CPU1 offline/online? Rafael