Re: 5.7 sleep/wake regression

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 5/13/20 12:11 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 6:57 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, May 11, 2020 7:37:04 PM CEST Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 5:15 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 6:22 AM Chris Murphy <chris@colorremedies.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Got an older Macbook Pro that does suspend to RAM and wake OK with
>>>>> 5.6, but starting with git 47acac8cae28, it will not wake up. Instead
>>>>> it has a black screen, gets hot, fans go to high, and it turns into a
>>>>> hair dryer. So it's a regression.
>>>>
>>>> There is a known issue addressed by this patch:
>>>>
>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11538065/
>>>>
>>>> so can you please try it?
>>>
>>> Patch applied, but the problem remains.
>>>
>>> CPU is i7-2820QM and dmesg for the working sleep+wake case:
>>> https://paste.centos.org/view/ea5b913d
>>>
>>> In the failed wake case, I note the following: the fade-in/out sleep
>>> indicator light on the laptop is pulsing, suggests it did actually
>>> enter sleep OK. When waking by spacebar press, this sleep indicator
>>> light stops pulsing, the backlight does not come on, the laptop does
>>> not respond to either ssh or ping. Following  a power reset and
>>> reboot, the journal's last line is
>>>
>>> [   61.678347] fmac.local kernel: PM: suspend entry (deep)
>>>
>>> Let me know if I should resume bisect.
>>
>> Please first try to revert commit
>>
>> 6d232b29cfce ("ACPICA: Dispatcher: always generate buffer
>> objects for ASL create_field() operator")
> 
> Still fails. Bisect says
> 
> $ git bisect good
> b41e98524e424d104aa7851d54fd65820759875a is the first bad commit
> commit b41e98524e424d104aa7851d54fd65820759875a
> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Date:   Mon Feb 17 09:52:41 2020 -0700
> 
>     io_uring: add per-task callback handler

Yeah, it's definitely not that...

> I'm not that great at git bisect so I'm not sure how to narrow it
> down; offhand that doesn't seem a likely culprit.

How reliable is the test you use to deem a given commit good or
bad? It sucks in terms of time, but it may be useful to re-run
the bisection and ensure that you don't ever have false positives.

-- 
Jens Axboe