Re: Possible regression? 2.6.26-rc1: T61s failure after suspend/resume

Hugh Dickins
2008-05-09T07:33:19Z

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 10:48:57PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > It's such a good signature, but I've failed to make progress with it.
> > Ted, please try doing the same (and check your logs for existing
> > segfault messages): let's see if you get the same number ;)
> > though I've no idea what it'd tell us.
>
> I cant say see any such segfaults. The only ones in my logs are
> these, and they seem to be correlated to right after a system boot:
>
> May 5 09:35:02 closure kernel: [ 2249.245926] hald-addon-keyb[8631]: segfault at fffffffd ip b7e827bc sp bffcf1a8 error 4 in libc-2.6.1.so[b7e15000+144000]
> May 5 09:35:02 closure kernel: [ 2249.252562] hald-addon-keyb[8630]: segfault at fffffffd ip b7dcf7bc sp bf81b9d8 error 4 in libc-2.6.1.so[b7d62000+144000]

I've grown accustomed to having a hal-whatever segfault just after startup
on the T43p, and pay no attention to those: I agree yours above are in
that category, and of no relevance to our -rc1 concerns.

Yours may indeed have nothing to do with mine: the absence of (interesting)
segfault in the logs doesn't let me draw any conclusion. If you can
get through a successful make -j3 kernel build after resume, without
X in the way, then I shall conclude yours is not mine. But for now
I'll assume I'm on my own and plug away at it somehow.

>
> I did find this, but it was from an attempt to do a bisect (see
> below). In this case the system lasted half-way through the boot
> sequence (although not before the X server started) before it crashed.
> I'm beginning to think that "git bisecting" in the middle of the merge
> window just doesn't work well because some people aren't adequately
> checking to make sure the their patch series are "git bisectable" in
> terms of being bootable between arbitrary patches in their series.

I'm actually impressed by how well people generally keep to that
discipline; I see the problem as more that when there's such a
quantity of changes flowing in, the chance of one bug interfering
with the hunt for another bug goes up and up.

> So what I plan to do when I have a spare 10-15 hours is to fetch the git
> id's from patch-2.6.25-git*.id, which should hopefully represent
> somewhat more likely-to-bootable git bisection points, and try to do a
> git bisect using those points to see if the resulting kernels are a
> bit more likely to last long enough so I can test for this particular
> regression.

Good luck: doesn't sound like so much fun that I'd want to do the same!

Hugh

>
> - Ted
>
> P.S. The "-numa" is due to a mistake that crept in via one of the
> patch trees (and which set -LOCALVERSION in the top-level Makefile; it
> got reverted later.)
>
>
> [ 2.097917]
> [ 2.097919] =================================
> [ 2.098059] [ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
> [ 2.098136] 2.6.25-numa-04462-g10c993a #23
> [ 2.098209] ---------------------------------
> [ 2.098284] inconsistent {in-hardirq-W} -> {hardirq-on-W} usage.
> [ 2.098359] swapper/0 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
> [ 2.098434] (&rq->rq_lock_key){++..}, at: [sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+67/116] sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+0x43/0x74
> [ 2.098753] {in-hardirq-W} state was registered at:
> [ 2.098833] [__lock_acquire+1023/2834] __lock_acquire+0x3ff/0xb12
> [ 2.099082] [lock_acquire+106/144] lock_acquire+0x6a/0x90
> [ 2.099329] [_spin_lock+28/73] _spin_lock+0x1c/0x49
> [ 2.099590] [scheduler_tick+67/443] scheduler_tick+0x43/0x1bb
> [ 2.099836] [update_process_times+61/73] update_process_times+0x3d/0x49
> [ 2.100083] [tick_periodic+102/114] tick_periodic+0x66/0x72
> [ 2.100327] [tick_handle_periodic+25/106] tick_handle_periodic+0x19/0x6a
> [ 2.100574] [timer_interrupt+72/115] timer_interrupt+0x48/0x73
> [ 2.100822] [handle_IRQ_event+26/79] handle_IRQ_event+0x1a/0x4f
> [ 2.101064] [handle_level_irq+127/202] handle_level_irq+0x7f/0xca
> [ 2.101316] [do_IRQ+169/210] do_IRQ+0xa9/0xd2
> [ 2.101563] [<ffffffff>] 0xffffffff
> [ 2.101806] irq event stamp: 1772935
> [ 2.101883] hardirqs last enabled at (1772935): [native_sched_clock+231/255] native_sched_clock+0xe7/0xff
> [ 2.102091] hardirqs last disabled at (1772934): [native_sched_clock+109/255] native_sched_clock+0x6d/0xff
> [ 2.102298] softirqs last enabled at (1772496): [__do_softirq+249/255] __do_softirq+0xf9/0xff
> [ 2.102501] softirqs last disabled at (1772491): [do_softirq+113/206] do_softirq+0x71/0xce
> [ 2.102708]
> [ 2.102709] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 2.102850] no locks held by swapper/0.
> [ 2.102923]
> [ 2.102924] stack backtrace:
> [ 2.103067] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.25-numa-04462-g10c993a #23
> [ 2.103145] [print_usage_bug+263/276] print_usage_bug+0x107/0x114
> [ 2.103278] [mark_lock+491/924] mark_lock+0x1eb/0x39c
> [ 2.103417] [__lock_acquire+1140/2834] __lock_acquire+0x474/0xb12
> [ 2.103547] [restore_nocheck+18/21] ? restore_nocheck+0x12/0x15
> [ 2.103740] [native_sched_clock+231/255] ? native_sched_clock+0xe7/0xff
> [ 2.103929] [lock_acquire+106/144] lock_acquire+0x6a/0x90
> [ 2.104065] [sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+67/116] ? sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+0x43/0x74
> [ 2.104255] [_spin_lock+28/73] _spin_lock+0x1c/0x49
> [ 2.104392] [sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+67/116] ? sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+0x43/0x74
> [ 2.104582] [sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+67/116] sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event+0x43/0x74
> [ 2.104715] [<f886c3b3>] acpi_idle_enter_simple+0x19a/0x21b [processor]
> [ 2.104858] [<f886bfa5>] acpi_idle_enter_bm+0xbe/0x332 [processor]
> [ 2.104999] [cpuidle_idle_call+99/143] cpuidle_idle_call+0x63/0x8f
> [ 2.105135] [cpuidle_idle_call+0/143] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x0/0x8f
> [ 2.105330] [cpu_idle+182/214] cpu_idle+0xb6/0xd6
> [ 2.105463] [rest_init+73/75] rest_init+0x49/0x4b
> [ 2.105596] =======================