Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Michael,

> 2.6.19-rc3 without reverting
> d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff stops receiving ACPI events after some
> use (sometimes after suspend/resume, sometimes after kernel build stress).  Now,
> what does this tell us? Andrew, any idea?

The code is related to bd_claim_by_disk which is called when
device-mapper or md tries to mark the underlying devices
for exclusive use and creates symlinks from/to the devices
in sysfs. The patch added error handlings which weren't in
the original code.

I have no idea how it affects ACPI event handling.
Are you using dm and/or md on your machine?
Have you seen any unusual kernel messages or symptoms regarding
dm/md before the ACPI problem occurs?

Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
Quoting r. Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>:
Subject    : T60 stops triggering any ACPI events
References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/4/425
             http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/16/262
             http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7408
Submitter  : "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>
Status     : unknown

OK, I spent half a night with git-bisect, and the patch that triggers this issue
seems to be this:

commit d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff
Author: Andrew Morton <[email protected]> [PATCH] blockdev.c: check driver layer errors

Reset to d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff seems to hide part of the issue
(I have ACPI after kernel build, but not after suspend/resume).  Both reverting
this patch, and reset to the parent of this patch seem to solve (or at least,
hide) both problems for me (no ACPI after suspend/resume and no ACPI after
kernel build).

I am currently running on 2.6.19-rc3 minus
d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff, and in a full day of use I have not
observed any issues yet. 2.6.19-rc3 without reverting
d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff stops receiving ACPI events after some
use (sometimes after suspend/resume, sometimes after kernel build stress).  Now,
what does this tell us? Andrew, any idea?


Martin, could you test whether reverting this helps you, too, by chance?
Here's a patch to apply for testing this.

---

commit 658488b7577b7b2242372c43f081f55e2d274615
Author: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Oct 30 01:28:40 2006 +0200

    Revert "[PATCH] blockdev.c: check driver layer errors"
This reverts commit 4d7dd8fd9557840162b724a8ac1366dd78a12dff.

Thanks,
--
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation of America
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux