From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10AB1280CF6 for ; Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769613962; cv=none; b=F0L+Us+wfqTE9dxXpGQ9U2Y5iAbJYSrV89q37juf80kSM33FlcRKDJWu8nF6jri7U6oMykDwBiSWmfLYx8bv3Ys5E5x4jQKw66PO0sESsFd+KsA5AqHHnVVQXJo3E5EAw17ooQiJgtARDyNZ4JqdxRdGRW0BpVAnneI6Bu6iCIA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769613962; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4S0RGWQIWPqHhwSlPBVW4h478dJtLZMJyanVf1tVnrg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=p2TnUBFFXrWppKbLEFlTeUtA8F6SQ5+0mr/cUUztqYUZKLRFiRJ7d7V/TADEf/zQpZj9dA/ZO8nU0BaRFGH1AUyFPLkcaUNTy1t8BFzScnZ+d3lxqPtpzDq3j4Tmua0y3DzbVb6N39pr5o0e/lx6sVadivzP57M8NmEq0J0bZAc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=Wy9HlUnI; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=2Eq3ffVP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="Wy9HlUnI"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="2Eq3ffVP" From: John Ogness DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1769613959; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4S0RGWQIWPqHhwSlPBVW4h478dJtLZMJyanVf1tVnrg=; b=Wy9HlUnI7zqzYFw978BZa0mfNcPxKg44MTIAD4HWvwnPIAzVkW5OS6rCsk1ttWfQJsyLRt ZLWv+CLZebpnb3CzPxebxDUdBcogDo8psmu+Txct3yew+zawpudjJX3BZrcS3cxLhhBthv loGTF5yNSNGfxvPRRAZ5cyRvd8mGtNsKritgNZz3KxzxjnVOTwT4GcTXGqQNsK2Nx+iw73 m4C4AMc1XbuOfzOWhxPx2CVyCMZIn6iX7ca2iG/sZpj8Ktr/AVbS99oPHbbzXwNtlrvMLc 5L/ogUrH3d55epYHgox0SxN3SidwqtEqvPQVxxmOOjLJrrT89yug1kY5rU7RQA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1769613959; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4S0RGWQIWPqHhwSlPBVW4h478dJtLZMJyanVf1tVnrg=; b=2Eq3ffVPW0KJBaRi+ZwAKtPLjUwgyNEmVqlb3AT1XHu72dWLweXSHnUcnMmJUSqWppEaBf w89o+3jntBaPetDQ== To: Petr Mladek , ysard Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, senozhatsky@chromium.org Subject: Re: Regression: system freeze on resume from suspend introduced by printk per-console suspended state In-Reply-To: References: <87tsxhbtxo.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> <877bts1ltv.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:31:59 +0106 Message-ID: <877bt1lpx4.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On 2026-01-28, Petr Mladek wrote: > But I have found a bug in John's debug patch from > https://lore.kernel.org/all/877bts1ltv.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de/ > > The patch tried to restore the original behavior on current mainline. > But console_suspend()/cosnole_resume() function have been renamed recently > to console_suspend_all()/console_resume_all(). The original > names were used for console-specific suspend/resume variants, > see > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250226-printk-renaming-v1-0-0b878577f2e6@suse.com/ > > Also the debug patch did not revert synchronize_srcu(). I guess that > this was intentional. I was also concerned about synchronize_srcu() being the culprit, which is why I left it in. I was really surprised the test patch still had problems. > But I would rather revert it as well because > it is a potentially blocking operation. > > Could you please test it with this fixed version of the debug patch? > > If the patch helps, by chance, then please try to uncomment > the synchronize_srcu() calls and check if it still works. Also, if the patch still has the problem, it would be nice to see the dmesg output with the patch applied when you do only the nvidia suspend/resume and avoid systemctl. > I wonder if they make in difference. Thanks Petr for the new patch version. I am curious what comes of it. John