Created attachment 282117 boot-sequence Okay I found a way to get it working and there was also a huge mistake on my last boot-config, the resume was commented :P I basically followed this: https://askubuntu.com/a/1064114 but changed to: resume=/dev/disk/by-uuid/70d967e6-ad52-4c21-baf0-01a813ccc6ac (just the uuid wouldnt work) and this is probably the most important thing to do.it worked! I also set the resume variable in initramfs to my swap partition but this might nor be so important anyway since it's automatically detected.
I tested both systemctl hibernate and pm-hibernate, i guess they call the same thing anyway. I attached a screenshot. Seems to be working fine without uswsusp and with nvidia proprietary drivers! On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:55 PM Rainer Fiebig <j...@mailbox.org> wrote: > > Am 03.04.19 um 18:59 schrieb Matheus Fillipe: > > Yes I can sorta confirm the bug is in uswsusp. I removed the package > > and pm-utils > > Matheus, > > there is no need to uninstall pm-utils. You actually need this to have > comfortable suspend/hibernate. > > The only additional option you will get from uswsusp is true s2both > (which is nice, imo). > > pm-utils provides something similar called "suspend-hybrid" which means > that the computer suspends and after a configurable time wakes up again > to go into hibernation. > > and used both "systemctl hibernate" and "echo disk >> > > /sys/power/state" to hibernate. It seems to succeed and shuts down, I > > am just not able to resume from it, which seems to be a classical > > problem solved just by setting the resume swap file/partition on grub. > > (which i tried and didn't work even with nvidia disabled) > > > > Anyway uswsusp is still necessary because the default kernel > > hibernation doesn't work with the proprietary nvidia drivers as long > > as I know and tested. > > What doesn't work: hibernating or resuming? > And /var/log/pm-suspend.log might give you a clue what causes the problem. > > > > > Is there anyway I could get any workaround to this bug on my current > > OS by the way? > > *I* don't know, I don't use Ubuntu. But what I would do now is > re-install pm-utils *without* uswsusp and make sure that you have got > the swap-partition/file right in grub.cfg or menu.lst (grub legacy). > > Then do a few pm-hibernate/resume and tell us what happened. > > So long! > > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 7:04 AM Rainer Fiebig <j...@mailbox.org> wrote: > >> > >> Am 03.04.19 um 11:34 schrieb Jan Kara: > >>> On Tue 02-04-19 16:25:00, Andrew Morton wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I cc'ed a bunch of people from bugzilla. > >>>> > >>>> Folks, please please please remember to reply via emailed > >>>> reply-to-all. Don't use the bugzilla interface! > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:29:26 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" > <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 6/13/2014 6:55 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:50:47AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>>>> On 6/13/2014 12:02 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 01:45:01AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2014 1:33 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi Oliver, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:00:13PM +0200, Oliver Winker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1) Attached a full function-trace log + other SysRq outputs, see > [1] > >>>>>>>>>>> attached. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I saw bdi_...() calls in the s2disk paths, but didn't check in > detail > >>>>>>>>>>> Probably more efficient when one of you guys looks directly. > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, this looks interesting. balance_dirty_pages() wakes up > the > >>>>>>>>>> bdi_wq workqueue as it should: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] s2disk-3327 2.... 48550413us : > global_dirty_limits <-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] s2disk-3327 2.... 48550414us : > global_dirtyable_memory <-global_dirty_limits > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] s2disk-3327 2.... 48550414us : > writeback_in_progress <-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] s2disk-3327 2.... 48550414us : > bdi_start_background_writeback <-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] s2disk-3327 2.... 48550414us : > mod_delayed_work_on <-balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited > >>>>>>>>>> but the worker wakeup doesn't actually do anything: > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2d... 48550431us : > finish_task_switch <-__schedule > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2.... 48550431us : > _raw_spin_lock_irq <-worker_thread > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2d... 48550431us : > need_to_create_worker <-worker_thread > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2d... 48550432us : > worker_enter_idle <-worker_thread > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2d... 48550432us : > too_many_workers <-worker_enter_idle > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2.... 48550432us : schedule > <-worker_thread > >>>>>>>>>> [ 249.148009] kworker/-3466 2.... 48550432us : __schedule > <-worker_thread > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> My suspicion is that this fails because the bdi_wq is frozen at > this > >>>>>>>>>> point and so the flush work never runs until resume, whereas > before my > >>>>>>>>>> patch the effective dirty limit was high enough so that image > could be > >>>>>>>>>> written in one go without being throttled; followed by an fsync() > that > >>>>>>>>>> then writes the pages in the context of the unfrozen s2disk. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Does this make sense? Rafael? Tejun? > >>>>>>>>> Well, it does seem to make sense to me. > >>>>>>>> From what I see, this is a deadlock in the userspace suspend model > and > >>>>>>>> just happened to work by chance in the past. > >>>>>>> Well, it had been working for quite a while, so it was a rather large > >>>>>>> opportunity > >>>>>>> window it seems. :-) > >>>>>> No doubt about that, and I feel bad that it broke. But it's still a > >>>>>> deadlock that can't reasonably be accommodated from dirty throttling. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It can't just put the flushers to sleep and then issue a large amount > >>>>>> of buffered IO, hoping it doesn't hit the dirty limits. Don't shoot > >>>>>> the messenger, this bug needs to be addressed, not get papered over. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Can we patch suspend-utils as follows? > >>>>>>> Perhaps we can. Let's ask the new maintainer. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Rodolfo, do you think you can apply the patch below to suspend-utils? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Alternatively, suspend-utils > >>>>>>>> could clear the dirty limits before it starts writing and restore > them > >>>>>>>> post-resume. > >>>>>>> That (and the patch too) doesn't seem to address the problem with > existing > >>>>>>> suspend-utils > >>>>>>> binaries, however. > >>>>>> It's userspace that freezes the system before issuing buffered IO, so > >>>>>> my conclusion was that the bug is in there. This is arguable. I also > >>>>>> wouldn't be opposed to a patch that sets the dirty limits to infinity > >>>>>> from the ioctl that freezes the system or creates the image. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, that sounds like a workable plan. > >>>>> > >>>>> How do I set those limits to infinity? > >>>> > >>>> Five years have passed and people are still hitting this. > >>>> > >>>> Killian described the workaround in comment 14 at > >>>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75101. > >>>> > >>>> People can use this workaround manually by hand or in scripts. But we > >>>> really should find a proper solution. Maybe special-case the freezing > >>>> of the flusher threads until all the writeout has completed. Or > >>>> something else. > >>> > >>> I've refreshed my memory wrt this bug and I believe the bug is really on > >>> the side of suspend-utils (uswsusp or however it is called). They are low > >>> level system tools, they ask the kernel to freeze all processes > >>> (SNAPSHOT_FREEZE ioctl), and then they rely on buffered writeback (which > is > >>> relatively heavyweight infrastructure) to work. That is wrong in my > >>> opinion. > >>> > >>> I can see Johanness was suggesting in comment 11 to use O_SYNC in > >>> suspend-utils which worked but was too slow. Indeed O_SYNC is rather big > >>> hammer but using O_DIRECT should be what they need and get better > >>> performance - no additional buffering in the kernel, no dirty throttling, > >>> etc. They only need their buffer & device offsets sector aligned - they > >>> seem to be even page aligned in suspend-utils so they should be fine. And > >>> if the performance still sucks (currently they appear to do mostly random > >>> 4k writes so it probably would for rotating disks), they could use AIO > DIO > >>> to get multiple pages in flight (as many as they dare to allocate > buffers) > >>> and then the IO scheduler will reorder things as good as it can and they > >>> should get reasonable performance. > >>> > >>> Is there someone who works on suspend-utils these days? Because the repo > >>> I've found on kernel.org seems to be long dead (last commit in 2012). > >>> > >>> Honza > >>> > >> > >> Whether it's suspend-utils (or uswsusp) or not could be answered quickly > >> by de-installing this package and using the kernel-methods instead. > >> > >> > > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1328727 Title: [Asus 1000HE] s2disk/hibernate hangs during saving of image data To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/linux/+bug/1328727/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
