From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: S3 sleep no longer works on x86_64 in 2.6.27 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:44:39 -0700 Message-ID: <49013697.2040902@zytor.com> References: <20081023122405.GC14838@redhat.com> <20081023125104.GA9506@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37740 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752427AbYJXCqk (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:46:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20081023125104.GA9506@elte.hu> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar , stable@kernel.org Cc: Gleb Natapov , gcosta@redhat.com, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> S3 sleep no longer works on x86_64 (at least in KVM, but it looks like >> this is the kernel bug). Kernel 2.6.26 works. I think that the commit >> that caused the problem is a939098af, but I can't be 100% sure since >> compilation is broken at this point. >> >> Triple fault happens during S3 resume. It happens in >> arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S during access to GDT after it was loaded on >> line 213 (lgdt early_gdt_descr(%rip)) early_gdt_descr points to >> per_cpu__gdt_page and this address contains valid GDT entries during a >> regular boot, but on S3 resume in contains garbage. It seems that >> per_cpu area is reallocated somewhere, but I don't understand this >> magic enough to fix it. Can somebody look at this and explain what >> happens? > > could you check whether the (post-v2.6.27) upstream fix below does the > trick for you? > > Ingo > > From 3038edabf48f01421c621cb77a712b446d3a5d67 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:26:27 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] x86 ACPI: fix breakage of resume on 64-bit UP systems with SMP kernel > > x86 ACPI: Fix breakage of resume on 64-bit UP systems with SMP kernel > Is this patch scheduled for 2.6.27-stable? If not, it sounds like it should be. -hpa