Re: [TuxOnIce-users] An assortment of TuxOnIce resume panics on a Radeon KMS-running system in 2.6.31.5, lzo-related?

[Nix <nix@esperi.org.uk>]

On 4 Nov 2009, Nigel Cunningham told this:

> Hi.
>
> Thanks for your bug report.
>
> I'd say it's a bug in the TuxOnIce code. How recent a version are you
> running? (It's been a while since I bumped the version number, so saying
> 3.0.1 doesn't mean much any more). Is it recent git?

4eddd0d169ddd285b9d7afdcbbfc1a85b870f5ea from your tuxonice 2.6.31 tree,
(merged, as mentioned, with Dave Airlie's drm-next branch).

I think that's the latest, right?

> Would you also let me know how your storage is configured - file
> allocator? swap allocator? More than one swap device? priorities? (I've

Swap allocator, striped equal-priority swap on two physical disks
(otherwise occupied entirely with an md1 array):

             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:      12301216    1238928   11062288          0     111228     440956
-/+ buffers/cache:     686744   11614472
Swap:     25189904          0   25189904
mutilate 2 ~% cat /proc/swaps
Filename                                Type            Size    Used    Priority
/dev/sda2                               partition       12594952        0       0
/dev/sdb2                               partition       12594952        0       0

(yes, I know it was mad to define swap as 2xRAM on this machine, but I
have disk space coming out of my ears and have no idea what to do with it :) )

Swap was barely in use when I suspended (and it's even less in use now
relatively recently post-reboot).

> been doing work in this area recently, and so suspect that it might be
> the cause).

It's odd that it manifested as a decompressor failure. I suppose if
something corrupts the data en route to or from the disk you might see
this? (wild speculation: maybe ordinary swapping happened on top of it,
though this seems rather unlikely).


I'm impressed with how well ToI works, btw: it must have saved me about
twenty quid in power costs on this desktop box already and I've only
been using it for a couple of months. I was even more impressed that
nothing went wrong when I started using KMS, once I'd boosted the
reserved pages enough: took a while to figure out the cause of those
crashes, though. Maybe you should print a very loud message when the
number of reserved pages that haven't been consumed drops below some
smallish number, if it's detectable, 'cos right now exceeding it
generally results in a crash at suspension time and newbies like me
can't tell the cause easily...