From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757274Ab3A3XM4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:12:56 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:49499 "EHLO mail-ee0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754414Ab3A3XMy (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:12:54 -0500 Message-ID: <5109A8F1.9040707@suse.cz> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:12:49 +0100 From: Jiri Slaby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20121129 Thunderbird/18.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Borislav Petkov , Bjorn Helgaas , x86@kernel.org, lkml , Konstantin Khlebnikov Subject: Re: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU 0. References: <20130129202848.GE25415@pd.tnic> <2240511.0oyl5pIt1j@vostro.rjw.lan> <51099BE2.5090706@suse.cz> <3120802.QvTiDSHyPj@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <3120802.QvTiDSHyPj@vostro.rjw.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/30/2013 11:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:17:06 PM Jiri Slaby wrote: >> On 01/30/2013 10:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> What is cool is that I have steps to reproduce: >>>> 1) boot >>>> 2) run the attached script (turn on all possible power savings -- in >>>> fact everything what powertop suggests) >>>> 3) suspend to _disk_ (mem is not enough, BIOS apparently has to >>>> interfere here) >>> >>> No, I don't think it's the BIOS. Most likely the boot kernel. >> >> Or that... >> >>>> 4) resume from disk >>>> 5) boom >>>> >>>> I tried to remove also wireless drivers, no change. >>> >>> Is the resume boot kernel the same as the one in the image? >> >> Yeah, the same ones: 3.7.5 > > Well, I guess that we leak some state from the boot kernel to the image kernel. > I have no idea what it is, but I suspect something arch-specific. > > I wonder what the affected systems have in common apart from e1000e? Everything as I have thinkpad x230 too :). Is there any other report than Borislav's? I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see exactly which of the power savings cause this. -- js suse labs