From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754828Ab1I1SF6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:05:58 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42331 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754520Ab1I1SF5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:05:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:05:56 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Yinghai Lu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , oneukum@suse.de, x86@kernel.org, Linux PM mailing list , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: S4 resume broken since 2.6.39 (3.1, too) In-Reply-To: References: <201109281645.48474.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.3 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:19:34 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:45:45 +0200, > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 16:45:48 +0200, > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2011, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:28:12 +0200, > > > > Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > At Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:26:19 +0200, > > > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 28, 2011, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > At Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:56:44 +0200, > > > > > > > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 27, 2011, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > At Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:26:44 -0700, > > > > > > > > > Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 09/22/2011 11:11 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:33:17 -0700, > > > > > > > > > > > Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> It looks like init_memory_mapping() is sometimes called with "end" > > > > > > > > > > >>> beyond the last mapped PFN and it explodes when we try to write stuff to > > > > > > > > > > >>> that address during image restoration. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> IOW, the Yinghai's assumption that init_memory_mapping() would always be > > > > > > > > > > >>> called with a "good end" on x86_64 was overomptimistic. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> for 64bit x86, kernel_physical_mapping_init() will use > > > > > > > > > > >> map_low_page()/call early_memmap() to access ram for page_table that is above > > > > > > > > > > >> rather last mapped PFN. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> the point is: > > > > > > > > > > >> on system with 64g, usable ram will be [0,2048m), [4g, 64g) > > > > > > > > > > >> init_memory_mapping will be called two times for them. > > > > > > > > > > >> before putting page_table high, > > > > > > > > > > >> page table will be two parts: one is just below 512M, and one below 2048m. > > > > > > > > > > >> after putting page_table high, > > > > > > > > > > >> page table will be two parts: one is just below 2048M, and one below 64G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, how can this change break S4 resume? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > seems resume has it's own page table during transition... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any hint for further debugging? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you may try to insert dead loop in arch/x86/power/hibernate_asm_64.S::restore_image or core_restore_code > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to see which part cause reset. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's the answer I was afraid of :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wonder. Does hibernation work on the machine in question with > > > > > > > > acpi_sleep=nonvs and if so, is the problem reproducible with this > > > > > > > > setting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It still shows the same problem. Reboots after a few S4 cycles. > > > > > > > I'll test kernel S4. > > > > > > > > > > > > This most likely means that NVS is not involved. > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, kernel S4 also failed both with and without acpi_sleep=nonvs. > > > > > > > > > > > Have you tried to revert commit d1ee433 (x86, trampoline: Use the unified > > > > > > trampoline setup for ACPI wakeup)? > > > > > > > > > > Not yet. I'll check it later. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately the commit can't be reverted cleanly. > > > > The commits around it seem mixed up together. > > > > > > > > If you have a patch applicable to 3.0 or 3.1 kernel, let me know. > > > > > > No, I don't, but can you simply go back to that commit and see > > > if the issue is reproducible with HEAD = d1ee433, and if it is, > > > see if it still will be reproducible after going one commit back from there? > > > > Ah, that should be easy. I'll give it a try. > > It turned out to be non-trivial. At the commit d1ee4335 > [x86, trampoline: Use the unified trampoline setup for ACPI wakeup], > I can build by cherry-picking the binutils fix commit 2ae9d293 > [x86: Fix binutils-2.21 symbol related build failures], > then merge Yinghai's patch series, the commit d2137d5af. > The test failed, as expected; S4 resume reboots. > > Then going back to the commit 4822b7fc > [x86, trampoline: Common infrastructure for low memory trampolines] > it's no longer buildable. This commit alone breaks too many things > and requires the stuff in the commit above d1ee4335. > > Backing off one would go to 2.6.38-rc5. Hmm. > > Anyway I try to check whether 2.6.38-rc5 + merge d2137d5af would cause > any issue. Surprisingly this causes also the same problem. If my previous test -- 2.6.37+Yinghai's patches didn't show the problem -- is correct, it means that some change in 2.6.38 reacted badly with Yinghai's patches, not about 2.6.39. I'll check tomorrow again whether this observation is really correct. Takashi