Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPICA: hw: Don't carry spinlock over suspend

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPICA: hw: Don't carry spinlock over suspend

[Andrey Borzenkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1110 bytes --]

> On Sunday, 30 September 2007 20:39, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > ACPI uses acpi_get_register() in order to get into suspend.
> > This function is guarded by acpi_gbl_hardware_lock, which will be carried
> > into resume phase.
> > At resume interrupts are enabled and first ACPI interrupt deadlocks on
> > this lock.
>
> Ouch.  That might have bitten quite some people, I guess.
>
> > Solution seems to be to not lock register read, as there are no
> > concurrent activity at this point.
> >
> > Reference: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7499
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>
>
> Do you think it's -stable material?

As someone who *has* been bitten by this bug - by all means.

I'd like to emphasize one more point - we were able to debug it only because 
old kernel at least displayed debug messages. Current kernel deadlocks 
absolutely dead (pun intended). No output to console, no indication what 
happens. I consider this regression. If at all possible, we should make sure 
that console output is available as early as possible.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/2] ACPICA: hw: Don't carry spinlock over suspend

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, 2 October 2007 06:07, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > On Sunday, 30 September 2007 20:39, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > ACPI uses acpi_get_register() in order to get into suspend.
> > > This function is guarded by acpi_gbl_hardware_lock, which will be carried
> > > into resume phase.
> > > At resume interrupts are enabled and first ACPI interrupt deadlocks on
> > > this lock.
> >
> > Ouch.  That might have bitten quite some people, I guess.
> >
> > > Solution seems to be to not lock register read, as there are no
> > > concurrent activity at this point.
> > >
> > > Reference: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7499
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>
> >
> > Do you think it's -stable material?
> 
> As someone who *has* been bitten by this bug - by all means.
> 
> I'd like to emphasize one more point - we were able to debug it only because 
> old kernel at least displayed debug messages. Current kernel deadlocks 
> absolutely dead (pun intended). No output to console, no indication what 
> happens. I consider this regression. If at all possible, we should make sure 
> that console output is available as early as possible.

Compile with DISABLE_CONSOLE_SUSPEND set and it should work.

There's a patch queued up for 2.6.24 that adds a command line switch for that.

Greetings,
Rafael