From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: S3 resume regression [1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to hotplugged cpu")] Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 10:26:50 +0300 Message-ID: <20160531072650.GP4329@intel.com> References: <20160511101920.GZ4329@intel.com> <57332171.8070403@linutronix.de> <20160511122116.GA4329@intel.com> <20160511084445.00030b49@gandalf.local.home> <20160511133406.GC4329@intel.com> <20160516193910.GL4329@intel.com> <573BA5E2.5040506@intel.com> <20160518072424.GU4329@intel.com> <20160526183207.GX4329@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Steven Rostedt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Peter Zijlstra , Arjan van de Ven , Rusty Russell , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Paul McKenney , Linus Torvalds , Paul Turner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Zhang, Rui" , Len Brown , Linux PM , Linux ACPI List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 10:43:51PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 > wrote: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:24:24AM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:14:42AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> > On 5/16/2016 9:39 PM, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > >> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 04:34:06PM +0300, Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wr= ote: > >> > >> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:44:45AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrot= e: > >> > >>> On Wed, 11 May 2016 15:21:16 +0300 > >> > >>> Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>> Yeah can't get anything from the machine at that point. net= console > >> > >>>> didn't help either, and no serial on this machine. And IIRC= I've > >> > >>>> tried ramoops on this thing in the past but unfortunately t= he memory > >> > >>>> got cleared on reboot. > >> > >>>> > >> > >>> Can you look at the documentation in the kernel code at > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Documentation/power/basic-pm-debugging.txt And follow the pr= ocedures > >> > >>> for testing suspend to RAM (although it requires mostly runn= ing the > >> > >>> same tests as for hibernation suspending). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> You can also use the tool s2ram for this as well. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> See Documentation/power/s2ram.txt > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps this can give us a bit more light onto the problem. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Basically the above does partial suspend and resume, and can= pinpoint > >> > >>> problem areas down to a more select location. > >> > >> All the pm_test modes work fine. The only difference between = them was > >> > >> that 'platform' required me to manually wake up the machine (= hitting a > >> > >> key was sufficient), whereas the others woke up without help. > >> > >> > >> > >> pm_trace gave me > >> > >> [ 1.306633] Magic number: 0:185:178 > >> > >> [ 1.322880] hash matches ../drivers/base/power/main.c:10= 70 > >> > >> [ 1.339270] acpi device:0e: hash matches > >> > >> [ 1.355414] platform: hash matches > >> > >> > >> > >> which is the TRACE_SUSPEND in __device_suspend_noirq(), so no= help > >> > >> there. > >> > >> > >> > >> I guess I could try to sprinkle more TRACE_RESUMEs around int= o some > >> > >> early resume code. If anyone has good ideas where to put them= it > >> > >> might speed things up a bit. > >> > > So I did a bunch of that and found that it gets stuck somewher= e > >> > > around executing the _WAK method: > >> > > platform_resume_noirq > >> > > acpi_pm_finish > >> > > acpi_leave_sleep_state > >> > > acpi_hw_sleep_dispatch > >> > > acpi_hw_legacy_wake > >> > > acpi_hw_execute_sleep_method > >> > > acpi_evaluate_object > >> > > acpi_ns_evaluate > >> > > acpi_ps_execute_method > >> > > acpi_ps_parse_aml > >> > > > >> > > It also seesm that adding a few TRACE_RESUME()s or an msleep()= right > >> > > after enable_nonboot_cpus() can avoid the hang, sometimes. > >> > > > >> > > I've attached the DSDT in case anyone is interested in looking= at it. > >> > > > >> > > >> > What if you comment out the execution of _WAK (line 318 of > >> > drivers/acpi/acpica/hwsleep.c in 4.6)? Does that make any diffe= rence? > >> > >> Indeed it does. Tried with acpi_idle and intel_idle, and both appe= ar to > >> resume just fine with that hack. > >> > >> - acpi_hw_execute_sleep_method(METHOD_PATHNAME__WAK, sleep_s= tate); > >> + //acpi_hw_execute_sleep_method(METHOD_PATHNAME__WAK, sleep= _state); > >> + printk(KERN_CRIT "skipping _WAK\n"); > > > > Continuing with my detective work a bit, I decided to hack the DSDT= a > > bit to see if I can narrow the it down further, and looks like I fo= und > > it on the first guess. The following change stops it from hanging. > > > > @ -5056,7 +5056,7 @@ > > If (LEqual (Arg0, 0x03)) > > { > > Store (0x01, \SPNF) > > - TRAP (0x46) > > + //TRAP (0x46) > > P8XH (0x00, 0x03) > > } > > > > So what does that do? Let's see: > > > > OperationRegion (IO_T, SystemIO, 0x0800, 0x10) > > Field (IO_T, ByteAcc, NoLock, Preserve) > > { > > Offset (0x08), > > TRP0, 8 > > } > > > > OperationRegion (GNVS, SystemMemory, 0x3F5E0C7C, 0x0200) > > Field (GNVS, AnyAcc, Lock, Preserve) > > { > > OSYS, 16, > > SMIF, 8, > > ... > > > > Method (TRAP, 1, Serialized) > > { > > Store (Arg0, SMIF) /* \SMIF */ > > Store (0x00, TRP0) /* \TRP0 */ > > Return (SMIF) /* \SMIF */ > > } > > > > and a dump of the IOTR registers shows: > > > > 0x1e80: 0x0000fe01 > > 0x1e84: 0x00020001 > > 0x1e98: 0x000c0801 > > 0x1e9c: 0x000200f0 > > > > which seems to be telling me that ports 0x800-0x80f and > > 0xfe00-0xfe03 would trigger an SMI. >=20 > Well, the name of the method kind of suggests that it triggers an SMM= trap. :-) Which is why I wanted confirm that by looking at the IOTR regs ;) >=20 > > So the next question is how do the idle drivers and cpu hotplug > > fit into this picture. Do we need to force the second HT into > > a specific C state before the SMI or something? >=20 > Or you can ask why exactly someone put that SMM trap into _WAK. >=20 > Apparently, it was regarded as necessary or no one would have > bothered. The only reason I can see why it might be regarded as > necessary was that Windows did something Linux doesn't do on that > platform, or, which to me is far more interesting, that Windows didn'= t > do something actually done by Linux. >=20 > My theory would be that Windows didn't reinitialize the second HT > properly during resume and the trap was added to let SMM do that. If > that's the case, the trap may trigger by the time the second HT > already executes code in Linux and then it will mess up with it and > crash. >=20 > Now, what do idles states have to do with that? IIRC, Windows puts > nonboot CPUs into idle states before suspend, so the SMM code > triggered by the trap may make assumptions about the CPU being in suc= h > a state or similar. BTW I also tried to move the enable_nonboot_cpus() after _WAK, and I tried to boot with nosmp, but neither trick helped. If someone could throw some patches my way to force things into a specific state before suspend/_WAK I'd be happy to test them out. --=20 Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 Intel OTC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html