From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc3: known unfixed regressions (v3) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:35:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20061030183522.GL27968@stusta.de> References: <20061029231358.GI27968@stusta.de> <20061030135625.GB1601@mellanox.co.il> <45462591.7020200@ce.jp.nec.com> <454637BE.6090309@ce.jp.nec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:20242 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1030330AbWJ3SfX (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:35:23 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jun'ichi Nomura , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Martin Lorenz , Pavel Machek , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , len.brown@intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@osdl.org, "Randy.Dunlap" On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:16:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >... > I assume that "compile the kernel" just triggers some magic ACPI event > (probably fan-related due to heat), and I wonder if the bisection faked > you out because once you get "close enough" the differences are small > enough that the kernel compile is quick and the heat event doesn't > actually trigger? > > See what I'm saying? Maybe the act of bisecting itself changed the > results, and then when you just revert the patch, you end up in the same > situation: you only recompile a small part (you only recompile that > particular file), and the problem doesn't occur, so you'd think that the > revert "fixed" it. > > If it's heat-related, it should probably trigger by anything that does a > lot of CPU (and perhaps disk) accesses, not just kernel builds. It might > be good to try to find another test-case for it than a kernel recompile, > one that doesn't depend on how much changed in the kernel.. Martin's original bug report stated "now I loose ACPI events after suspend/resume. not every time, but roughly 3 out of 4 times." This seems to support your theory. But considering that two people have independently reported this as a 2.6.19-rc regression for similar hardware (Michael for a T60 and Martin for an X60), a problem in the kernel seems to be involved. Martin, Michael, can you send complete "dmesg -s 1000000" for both 2.6.18.1 and a non-working 2.6.19-rc kernel after resume? I don't have high hopes, but perhaps looking at the dmesg and/or diff'ing them might give a hint. > Linus cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed