Re: 2.6.30: hibernation/swsusp lockup due to acpi-cpufreq

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue Jun 16 2009 - 17:11:26 EST

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:40:39 +0200
Johannes Stezenbach <js@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 01:25:58PM -0700, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> >
> > Can you try the patch below (your changes + a warnon). That should give
> > the stack trace with successful suspend-resume.
> >
> > acpi-cpufreq will not directly disable interrupt and call these routines.
> > So, it will be interesting to see how we are ending up in this state.
> Yes, I actually had the same idea and just did it ;-)
> I also found this:
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: at kernel/up.c:18 smp_call_function_single+0x45/0x60()
> Hardware name: 2373Y4M
> Modules linked in: ath5k mac80211 cfg80211 uhci_hcd ehci_hcd
> Pid: 4139, comm: bash Not tainted 2.6.30 #8
> Call Trace:
> [<c011ea0d>] warn_slowpath_common+0x60/0x90
> [<c010d86c>] ? do_drv_read+0x0/0x31
> [<c011ea4a>] warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10
> [<c013acc1>] smp_call_function_single+0x45/0x60
> [<c010d4e5>] get_cur_val+0x62/0x6c
> [<c010d72f>] get_cur_freq_on_cpu+0x35/0x58
> [<c03786e9>] cpufreq_suspend+0x76/0xd9
> [<c0136c3b>] ? clockevents_notify+0x1e/0x68
> [<c02ff570>] sysdev_suspend+0x4e/0x182
> [<c013fd28>] hibernation_snapshot+0x89/0x16b
> [<c013fe99>] hibernate+0x8f/0x147
> [<c013ec82>] ? state_store+0x0/0xa2
> [<c013ecd7>] state_store+0x55/0xa2
> [<c013ec82>] ? state_store+0x0/0xa2
> [<c024dff5>] kobj_attr_store+0x1a/0x22
> [<c01a7164>] sysfs_write_file+0xb4/0xdf
> [<c01a70b0>] ? sysfs_write_file+0x0/0xdf
> [<c0170cf2>] vfs_write+0x8a/0x12c
> [<c0170e2d>] sys_write+0x3b/0x60
> [<c01028f4>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
> ---[ end trace 1c2172bce3982a59 ]---

Right, so it's the suspend-must-disable-local-interrupts thing. Again.
create_image()'s local_irq_disable().

It was wrong to call work_on_cpu() with lcoal interrupts disabled, and
it's now wrong to call smp_call_function_single() with local interrupts
disabled. It's just that smp_call_function_single() warns while
work_on_cpu() didn't.

That all explains the warning But afaik we still don't know why your
machine actually failed. Perhaps it is a side-efect of emitting the
warning when the console is in a weird state?

So.. what to do? Possibly we could hack cpufreq to not use
smp_call_function_single() if the call is to be done on the local CPU.
But SMP might still be broken - if it really does want to do a cross-cpu

Why does cpufreq need to do a cross-CPU get_cur_freq_on_cpu() call at
suspend time _anyway_? Surely cpufreq knows the target CPU's frequency
from its internal in-main-memory state?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at