On Tue, 20 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:37 AM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:24 PM Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > wrote: > > > > The ACPI handler is not the culprit. This is either an emulation bug or > > > > something really strange. Can you please use a WARN_ON() if the loop is > > > > exited via the timeout so we can see in which context this happens? > > > > > > > > > > B. On 5.3-rc4 problem is gone. I guess it is overall good sign. > > > > Now the interesting question is what changed between 5.3-rc3 and > > 5.3-rc4. Could you please try to bisect that? > > > > Apparently I can not, and frustrated'ingly do not understand it. > Tried twice, and every time I get it broken to the end of bisection - > so the fixed-in-5.3-rc4 theory falls apart. Yet if I build cleanly > 5.3-rc4 or -rc5, it works OK. > Then on a 32 bit system - I first tried with a scaled-down kernel > (just with the drivers needed in the VM). That one is never working, > even in rc5. Yet the "full" kernel works OK. So now there is a config > issue variation on top of other problem?
Looks like and it would be good to know which knob it is. Can you send me the two configs please? > > dpm_suspend_noirq() is called with all CPUs online and interrupts > > enabled. In that case an interrupt pending in IRR does not make any sense > > at all. Confused. > > > For now I use a timeout counter patch - and it is showing 100% irq9 > jammed and needing rescue. And I am even more confused... You're not alone, if that gives you a bit of comfort :) Thanks, tglx