> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
> > > And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
> >
> > Ok, can we try to fix the video issue for you? That should make the
>
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
Ok, can we try to fix the video issue for you? That should make the
development
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 10:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
> > > And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
> >
> > Ok, can
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
> > And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
>
> Ok, can we try to fix the video issue for you? That should make the
>
Hi!
> > Ok, here we are. The bad one uses C2 which stops the local apic on the
> > VAIO. I suspect we end up in the suspend/resume with going into C2
> > without the broadcast active.
> >
> > Can you try to get the output of SysRq-Q during the "it needs help from
> > keyboard" period ?
> >
>
>
Hi!
Ok, here we are. The bad one uses C2 which stops the local apic on the
VAIO. I suspect we end up in the suspend/resume with going into C2
without the broadcast active.
Can you try to get the output of SysRq-Q during the it needs help from
keyboard period ?
That's a bit
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
Ok, can we try to fix the video issue for you? That should make the
development
On Saturday, 22 September 2007 10:50, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 18:37 +, Pavel Machek wrote:
That's a bit tricky because hitting the keyboard is what unsticks things.
And the video is black after resume-from-RAM (has always been thus) and we
Ok, can we try to
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:57:42 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the test hack below fix the problem for nohz/highres enabled
> kernels ?
>
> tglx
>
> --- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
> @@ -382,6 +382,8 @@ static int
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 02:16 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:49:47 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--]
> > > > latency[001]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:49:47 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[001]
> > > usage[0010] duration[]
> > >*C2:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:52:01 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in the time handling,
> > > > except
> > > > there are large changes in when things happen in the bootup
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 02:16 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:49:47 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--]
latency[001] usage[0010]
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:57:42 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does the test hack below fix the problem for nohz/highres enabled
kernels ?
tglx
--- a/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
+++ b/kernel/time/tick-broadcast.c
@@ -382,6 +382,8 @@ static int
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:52:01 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in the time handling,
except
there are large changes in when things happen in the bootup sequence.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:49:47 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[001]
usage[0010] duration[]
*C2:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[001]
> > usage[0010] duration[]
> >*C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[001]
> > usage[8316]
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in the time handling, except
> > > there are large changes in when things happen in the bootup sequence.
> >
> > The question is whether the system goes into C2 with the patch applied.
> >
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:35:15 +0200
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dmesg without the cpuidle patch:
> > http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-bad.txt
> > dmesg with the cpuidle patch: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-good.txt
> > difference:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 20:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:09:12 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:38:03 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > It evidently assumes cpuidle to be present, which is not in the mainline.
> >
> > Bear in mind that the cpuidle patch fixes resume-from-ram when cpuidle
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:25:31 -0700
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> dmesg without the cpuidle patch:
> http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-bad.txt dmesg with the cpuidle
> patch: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-good.txt difference:
>
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > It evidently assumes cpuidle to be present, which is not in the mainline.
>
> Bear in mind that the cpuidle patch fixes resume-from-ram when cpuidle is
> disabled in config.
>
> > It seems to me that the total effect of this one and the
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:09:12 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:20 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
> > > >
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
> > > 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that
> > >
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
> > 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that there
> > must have been something else in the tree which I tested which fixed the
> > bug
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:34:31 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
> > > 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that
> > >
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
> > 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that there
> > must have been something else in the tree which I tested which fixed the
> > bug
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 00:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > This patch broke the jinxed vaio.
> > >
> > > Which is a bit odd, considering that I must have tested it at the time.
> > > But I bisected it right down to this commit, and the below revert patch
> > > fixed it up.
> >
> > I just
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:37:16 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 14:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > clockevents: fix resume logic
> > >
> > > We need to make sure, that the clockevent devices are resumed, before
> > > the tick is
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 14:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > clockevents: fix resume logic
> >
> > We need to make sure, that the clockevent devices are resumed, before
> > the tick is resumed. The current resume logic does not guarantee this.
> >
> > Add
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 14:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
clockevents: fix resume logic
We need to make sure, that the clockevent devices are resumed, before
the tick is resumed. The current resume logic does not guarantee this.
Add CLOCK_EVT_MODE_RESUME and
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:37:16 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 14:47 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
clockevents: fix resume logic
We need to make sure, that the clockevent devices are resumed, before
the tick is resumed. The
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 00:00 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
This patch broke the jinxed vaio.
Which is a bit odd, considering that I must have tested it at the time.
But I bisected it right down to this commit, and the below revert patch
fixed it up.
I just looked up, that you
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that there
must have been something else in the tree which I tested which fixed the
bug which
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:34:31 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that
there
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that there
must have been something else in the tree which I tested which fixed the
bug which
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6. So all I can think is that
there
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:20 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to the original patch which I sent to Linus and it matches
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 09:23 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I went back to
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:47:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:20:05 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 01:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:16:04 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:09:12 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 12:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue,
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
It evidently assumes cpuidle to be present, which is not in the mainline.
Bear in mind that the cpuidle patch fixes resume-from-ram when cpuidle is
disabled in config.
It seems to me that the total effect of this one and the
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:25:31 -0700
Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dmesg without the cpuidle patch:
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-bad.txt dmesg with the cpuidle
patch: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-good.txt difference:
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-diff.txt
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:38:03 +0200 Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:25 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
It evidently assumes cpuidle to be present, which is not in the mainline.
Bear in mind that the cpuidle patch fixes resume-from-ram when cpuidle is
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 20:25, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:09:12 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2007 13:22, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:23:55 +0200 Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:35:15 +0200
Rafael J. Wysocki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dmesg without the cpuidle patch:
http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-bad.txt
dmesg with the cpuidle patch: http://userweb.kernel.org/~akpm/dmesg-good.txt
difference:
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 11:44 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference in the time handling, except
there are large changes in when things happen in the bootup sequence.
The question is whether the system goes into C2 with the patch applied.
Can you
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 21:52 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
C1: type[C1] promotion[C2] demotion[--] latency[001]
usage[0010] duration[]
*C2: type[C2] promotion[--] demotion[C1] latency[001]
usage[8316]
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:59:11 GMT Linux Kernel Mailing List
wrote:
> Gitweb:
> http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6
> Commit: 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6
> Parent:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 01:59:11 GMT Linux Kernel Mailing List
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org wrote:
Gitweb:
http://git.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6
Commit: 18de5bc4c1f1f1fa5e14f354a7603bd6e9d4e3b6
Parent:
62 matches
Mail list logo