From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765421AbYEIQWq (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 12:22:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764751AbYEIQWI (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 12:22:08 -0400 Received: from extu-mxob-2.symantec.com ([216.10.194.135]:32821 "EHLO extu-mxob-2.symantec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764697AbYEIQWB (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 May 2008 12:22:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 17:21:14 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@blonde.site To: Glauber Costa cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Glauber Costa , Ingo Molnar , "Carlos R. Mafra" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Possible regression? 2.6.26-rc1: T61s failure after suspend/resume In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80805090828j1a1af054y547640c3408bca1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <5d6222a80805090828j1a1af054y547640c3408bca1b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 9 May 2008, Glauber Costa wrote: > > I can't reproduce it neither, and looking at the code over and over > again, see no obvious point for the breakage. I'll try to reproduce it > myself, > to see if I can spot something. But correct me if I'm wrong, this is > all 64-bit machines, right? > > I'm stuck with mostly 32-bit hardware, but will give it a try anyway. The machine is 64-bit capable (Core2 Duo), but the kernels I'm running for this are 32-bit, so I doubt that the 64-bitability is relevant. I'd love to see what happens with a 64-bit kernel, but I never get back from suspend with it (and that's not a recent regression). Carlos is also seeing this with a 32-bit kernel (on P4 Xeon with HT). Please don't take my git bisection result too seriously: that's where it led when I fudged things around enough, and treated blank screens as manifestations of the problem, which very likely they're not (there's some other bug which makes it very variable how quickly I resume). And also, I wasn't checking how many cpus came up each time: I wouldn't be surprised if at some points in your series only one would come up, which would then look like a "good" point to me. Thanks, Hugh