From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14DDCC433FF for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1CB2084D for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 07:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730319AbfHOHhR (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:37:17 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:39071 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726120AbfHOHhR (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:37:17 -0400 Received: from [5.158.153.52] (helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1hyAJs-0006R3-3r; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:37:12 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:37:06 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Woody Suwalski cc: LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: Kernel 5.3.x, 5.2.2+: VMware player suspend on 64/32 bit guests In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <2e70a6e2-23a6-dbf2-4911-1e382469c9cb@gmail.com> <11dc5f68-b253-913a-4219-f6780c8967a0@intel.com> <594c424c-2474-5e2c-9ede-7e7dc68282d5@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Woody, On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:24 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > The ACPI handler is not the culprit. This is either an emulation bug or > > something really strange. Can you please use a WARN_ON() if the loop is > > exited via the timeout so we can see in which context this happens? > > > > B. On 5.3-rc4 problem is gone. I guess it is overall good sign. Now the interesting question is what changed between 5.3-rc3 and 5.3-rc4. Could you please try to bisect that? > C. To recreate problem I went back to 5.2.4. The WARN_ON trace shows > (in reverse): Next time you can spare yourself the work to reverse the stack trace. We are all used to read it the other way round :) > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > do_syscall_64 > ksys_write > vfs_write > kernfs_fop_write > state_store > pm_suspend.cold.3 > suspend_devices_and_enter > dpm_suspend_noirq > suspend_device_irqs > ?ktime_get > ?synchronize > synchronize_irq > __synchronize_hardirq.cold.9 dpm_suspend_noirq() is called with all CPUs online and interrupts enabled. In that case an interrupt pending in IRR does not make any sense at all. Confused. Thanks, tglx