On Sunday 09 September 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:00, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > On Sunday 01 July 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, 30 June 2007 06:59, Andrey Borzenkov wrote: > > > > Since 2.6.18 I do not have suspend to RAM; now I am starting to lose > > > > suspend to disk :) > > > > > > > > Environment - vanilla kernel (2.6.22-rc6 currently + squashfs + > > > > single pata_ali patch to switch off DMA on CD-ROM), single root on > > > > reiserfs, libata with pata_ali driver. > > > > > > > > Until 2.6.22-rc I never had problems with hibernation. With 2.6.22-rc > > > > system hung at least once in every rcX. Up to rc6 those lockups were > > > > absolutely silent (black screen without reaction to any key). In rc6 > > > > I just got something different. After resume I got on screem: > > > > > > > > swsusp: Marking nosave pages: 000000000009f000-0000000000100000 > > > > swsusp: Basic memory bitmaps created > > > > swsusp: Basic memory bitmaps freed > > > > > > > > After that it just sits there doing nothing. Ther was brief sound of > > > > HDD but I suspect it was related more to power-on. System was > > > > responding to power-on button press: > > > > > > > > ACPI Error (event-0305): No installed handler for fixed event > > > > [00000002 20070125] > > > > > > > > And SysRq was functioning. > > > > > > That probably means that there's a deadlock somewhere in there. > > > > > > > Unfortunately I do not have serial console so I > > > > copy manually stacks from several last screens of output; I have > > > > tried to make a photo but right now my kbluetooth is refusing to work > > > > at all so I cannot transfer them :( (but I suspect quality would be > > > > too bad anyway) > > > > > > > > laptop_mode D > > > > io_schedule+0xe/0x20 > > > > > > Looks suspicious to me. Can you identify what line of code this points > > > to? > > > > > > > sync_buffer+0x35/0x40 > > > > __wait_on_bit+0x45/0x70 > > > > out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x6c/0x80 > > > > __wait_on_buffer+0x27/0x30 > > > > search_by_key+0x15e/0x1250 [reiserfs] > > > > reiserfs_read_locked_inode+0x64/0x570 [reiserfs] > > > > reiserfs_iget+0x7e/0xa0 [reiserfs] > > > > reiserfs_lookup+0xc7/0x120 [reiserfs] > > > > do_lookup+0x138/0x180 > > > > __link_path_walk+0x787/0xce0 > > > > link_path_walk+0x44/0xc0 > > > > path_walk+0x18/0x20 > > > > do_path_lookup_0x88/0x210 > > > > __path_lookupintent_open+0x4d/0x90 > > > > path_lookup_open+0x1f/0x30 > > > > open_exec+0x28/0xb0 > > > > do_execve+0x36/0x1d0 > > > > sys_execve+0x2e/0x80 > > > > sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99 > > > > > > > > 90clock D > > > > __mutex_lock_slow_path+0xa1/0x290 > > > > mutex_lock+0x21/0x30 > > > > do_lookup+0xa1/0x180 > > > > __link_path_walk+0x44/0xc0 > > > > path_walk+0x18/0x20 > > > > do_path_lookup+0x78/0x210 > > > > __user_walk_fd+0x38/0x50 > > > > vfs_stat_fd+0x21/0x50 > > > > vfs_stat+0x11/0x20 > > > > sys_stat64+0x14/0x30 > > > > sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x99 > > > > > > > > alsactl D > > > > io_schedule+0xe/0x20 > > > > > > Same here. Hmm. > > > > > > > sync_page+0x35/0x40 > > > > __wait_on_bit_lock+0x3f/0x70 > > > > __lock_page+0x68/0x70 > > > > filemap_nopage+0x16c/0x300 > > > > __handle_mm_faul+0x1d7/0x610 > > > > do_page_fault+0x1d7/0x610 > > > > error_code+0x6a/0x70 > > > > padzero+0x1f/0x30 > > > > load_elf_binary+0x743/0x1ab0 > > > > search_binary_handler+0x7b/0x1f0 > > > > do_execve+0x137/0x1d0 > > > > sys_execve+0x2e/0x80 > > > > sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0x90 > > > > > > > > After that I could remount, sync and reboot using SysRq (well, after > > > > reboot it still insisted on replaying insane number of transactions > > > > so may be it did *not* remount / ro after all). Before reboot there > > > > was brief output that resembled lockdep warnings, but it went too > > > > fast to be readable. > > > > > > > > usual stuff follows > > > > > > I see you're using CFQ as the default IO scheduler. Can you please > > > switch to AS and see if that changes anything? > > > > I just had the same lockup on resume using AS with 2.6.23-rc5. > > Hm. Does your root partition sit on reiserfs? yes - "single root on reiserfs"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- Re: [possible regression] 2.6.22 reiserfs/libata sporadically hangs on resume from hibernation
- From: Andrey Borzenkov <[email protected]>
- Re: [possible regression] 2.6.22 reiserfs/libata sporadically hangs on resume from hibernation
- From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
- Re: [possible regression] 2.6.22 reiserfs/libata sporadically hangs on resume from hibernation
- Prev by Date: Re: broken ACPI NUMA config option
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 16/22] advansys: Eliminate prototypes
- Previous by thread: Re: [possible regression] 2.6.22 reiserfs/libata sporadically hangs on resume from hibernation
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] b44: power down PHY when interface down
- Index(es):