Re: [regression,bisected] restore of disks after suspend-to-disk broken in 3.9.x

[Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>]

On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 22:07 +0200, Giacomo Perale wrote:
> 2013/5/27 Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>:
> > On Sun, 2013-05-26 at 15:51 +0200, Giacomo Perale wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> after upgrading from 3.8.7 to 3.9.x I noticed some slightly longer
> >> delays when resuming from suspend-to-disk and a few new error messages
> >> in the logs:
> >>
> >>
> >> Not having connected the issue with the previous error messages I
> >> initially blamed the disk and replaced it with a new one thinking it
> >> was broken, but the problem persisted so I started a bisection run
> >> that pointed to this commit:
> >>
> >>
> >> b8bb6cb999858043489c1ddef08eed2127559169 is the first bad commit
> >> commit b8bb6cb999858043489c1ddef08eed2127559169
> >> Author: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> >> Date:   Thu Nov 22 15:45:02 2012 +0800
> >>
> >>     step_wise: Unify the code for both throttle and dethrottle
> >>
> >>     Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
> >>
> > I do not see how this would affect the sata hibernation/resume.
> > but anyway, would you please try the four patches in comment #10, #11,
> > #12 and #13 in
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58301
> > and check if they help?
> >
> > thanks,
> > rui
> >
> 
> No luck, with git head and those four patches hibernation is
> completely broken, the system doesn't even shut down, it just loses
> the disks (I'm attaching what I could get from /proc/kmsg to this
> email).
> 
then can you please try the patch at
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2633071/
on top of the four patches and see if it helps?

thanks,
rui

> With the fair_share governor or with step_wise _and_ commit
> b8bb6cb999858043489c1ddef08eed2127559169 reverted everything is ok
> again.
> 
> I think there's something wrong in the commit logic (for example, why
> are you checking for "instance->target != THERMAL_NO_TARGET" when
> update_instance_for_throttle checked for "instance->target ==
> THERMAL_NO_TARGET"?) but my attempts to fix it failed, probably
> because I'm not sure of what 'continue;' does inside a
> list_for_each_entry macro.
> 
> Thanks,
> Giacomo