On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:08PM +0100, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:46:56PM +0100, Mel LKML wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > On 10/23/09, Karol Lewandowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 06:58:10PM +0200, Karol Lewandowski wrote: > > > > Ok, I've tested patches 1+2+4 and bug, while very hard to trigger, is > > > still present. I'll test complete 1-4 patchset as time permits. > > Sorry for silence, I've been quite busy lately. > > > > And also patch 5 please which is the revert. Patch 5 as pointed out is > > probably a red herring. Hwoever, it has changed the timing and made a > > difference for some testing so I'd like to know if it helps yours as > > well. > > I've tested patches 1+2+3+4 in my normal usage scenario (do some work, > suspend, do work, suspend, ...) and it failed today after 4 days (== 4 > suspend-resume cycles). > > I'll test 1-5 now. >
I was digging through commits for suspend-related changes. Rafael, is there any chance that some change to suspend is responsible for this regression? This commit for example is a vague possibility; c6f37f12197ac3bd2e5a35f2f0e195ae63d437de: PM/Suspend: Do not shrink memory before suspend I say vague because FREE_PAGE_NUMBER is so small. Also, what was the behaviour of the e100 driver when suspending before this commit? 6905b1f1a03a48dcf115a2927f7b87dba8d5e566: Net / e100: Fix suspend of devices that cannot be power managed -- Mel Gorman Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
