On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Oh, this reminds me that this time it might be unrelated to
> yesterday's use of ethernet. Because today, I resumed the system by a
> kernel which I didn't pass nmi_watchdog=0 to.
>
> Hmm. So you can silently ignore the report I sent
On 04/04/2013 11:33 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:32:09AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess
>> what happened today: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU
>> 0.
>>
>> S
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:32:09AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess
> what happened today: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU
> 0.
>
> Still holds that this is the first time since Jan.
Yeah, you could try m
NMI was on 31st Jan. Since I
> disabled NMI watchdog no more unhandled NMIs. I have to add that I don't
> use ethernet at all.
And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess what
happened today:
Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Still holds that th
at all.
And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess what
happened today:
Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Still holds that this is the first time since Jan.
--
js
suse labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:32:09AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess
what happened today: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU
0.
Still holds that this is the first time since Jan.
Yeah, you could try my sure-fire way
On 04/04/2013 11:33 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 09:32:09AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
And yesterday I plugged in an ethernet cable for a wihle and guess
what happened today: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 2c on CPU
0.
Still holds that this is the first time since
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
Oh, this reminds me that this time it might be unrelated to
yesterday's use of ethernet. Because today, I resumed the system by a
kernel which I didn't pass nmi_watchdog=0 to.
Hmm. So you can silently ignore the report I sent today
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:13:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I suspected that during resume from hibernation the boot kernel (the
> > one that loaded the image) did something to hardware and the restored
> > kernel didn't
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:13:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I suspected that during resume from hibernation the boot kernel (the
one that loaded the image) did something to hardware and the restored
kernel didn't handle
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:13:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I suspected that during resume from hibernation the boot kernel (the
> one that loaded the image) did something to hardware and the restored
> kernel didn't handle that change properly. It is hard do say what
> piece of hardware
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:27:37 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > They are in my queue of
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:33:45AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Would you like me to add your Tested-by: to the patches?
Sure, if you'd like to:
Tested-by: Borislav Petkov
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 12:27 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > > They are in my queue of e1000e
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > > They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> > > currently. I should be
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> > They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> > currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
>
> Right, if you'd like me to run
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
> currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
Right, if you'd like me to run them here too, let me know.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/2013 11:01 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:42 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> The e1000e changes didn't get merged, did they? I don't see
>>> the following changes mentioned at
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185 in
nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth0:
> > >> 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
> > >> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
> > >> unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
> > >> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.03416
4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412541] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up
> >> 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx
> >> Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth0:
> >> 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
> >> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmuni
On 03/05/2013 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Rafael, what's the state of those patches here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185, are they ready to be tested or you
> still have issues with them?
Note there is a resend version:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/25/3
with a note from Jeff
; Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412541] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up
> >> 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx
> >> Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e 0000:00:19.0 eth0:
> >> 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
> >> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul
l: Rx/Tx
>> Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0:
>> 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
>> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
>> unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
>> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166
/100 speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166] Do you have a strange power
saving mode enabled?
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034168] Dazed and confused
Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0:
10/100 speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166] Do you have a strange power
saving mode
On 03/05/2013 10:58 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
Rafael, what's the state of those patches here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185, are they ready to be tested or you
still have issues with them?
Note there is a resend version:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/25/3
with a note from Jeff Kirsher:
I
:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0:
10/100 speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166] Do you have a strange power
saving mode enabled
: eth0 NIC Link is
Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx
Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0:
10/100 speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for
unknown reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/05/2013 11:01 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 10:42 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
The e1000e changes didn't get merged, did they? I don't see
the following changes mentioned at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/185 in 3.9-rc1:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
Right, if you'd like me to run them here too, let me know.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
currently. I should be able to push them upstream this week.
Right, if you'd like me to run them
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
They are in my queue of e1000e patches for net and are being testing
currently. I should be able to push
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 12:27 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
They are in my queue of e1000e patches for
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:33:45AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
Would you like me to add your Tested-by: to the patches?
Sure, if you'd like to:
Tested-by: Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To
On Tuesday, March 05, 2013 12:27:37 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:29:01AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 11:14 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:02:48AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
They are in my queue of e1000e patches
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 01:13:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I suspected that during resume from hibernation the boot kernel (the
one that loaded the image) did something to hardware and the restored
kernel didn't handle that change properly. It is hard do say what
piece of hardware that
100 speed: disabling TSO
> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown
> reason 2c on CPU 0.
> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166] Do you have a strange power
> saving mode enabled?
> Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034168] Dazed an
23.412541] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100
Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx
Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0: 10/100
speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown
reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:
] e1000e: eth0 NIC Link is Up 100
Mbps Full Duplex, Flow Control: Rx/Tx
Mar 4 21:47:34 nazgul vmunix: [ 3223.412554] e1000e :00:19.0 eth0: 10/100
speed: disabling TSO
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown
reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix
nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034158] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown
reason 2c on CPU 0.
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034166] Do you have a strange power
saving mode enabled?
Mar 4 21:47:35 nazgul vmunix: [ 3224.034168] Dazed and confused, but trying
to continue
The e1000e changes didn't get
On 01/31/2013 02:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> And if I pass nmi_watchdog=0 to the image kernel, it should be gone I
>>> guess.
>>
>> How do you pass options the image kernel?
>
> Yep, passing "nmi_watchdog=0" to the kernel
On 02/15/2013 09:54 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> It's pretty late for v3.8, but let me know if you think they're
>>> critical.
>>
>> Ok, I meant those:
>>
>>
On 02/15/2013 09:54 AM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
It's pretty late for v3.8, but let me know if you think they're
critical.
Ok, I meant those:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernelm=135984592927219
They
On 01/31/2013 02:24 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
And if I pass nmi_watchdog=0 to the image kernel, it should be gone I
guess.
How do you pass options the image kernel?
Yep, passing nmi_watchdog=0 to the kernel (both when you
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:54:12PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >* https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/ (e1000e: fix pci device enable
> >counter balance)
>
> please use this instead:
>
> [PATCH v2 1/7] e1000e: fix pci-device enable-counter balance
>
Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at:
Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkovb...@suse.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:54:12PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
* https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/ (e1000e: fix pci device enable
counter balance)
please use this instead:
[PATCH v2 1/7] e1000e: fix pci-device enable-counter balance
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/4/190
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > The [2/5] is at:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> > The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
>> >
>> > The other two are attached.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
> >
> > The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
>
> Ok, the eth link
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
Ok, the eth link cable
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
The other two are attached.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:17:46AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:39 AM, Borislav Petkov b...@suse.de wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at:
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 02:54:00 PM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 02/03/2013 12:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it
On 02/03/2013 12:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
>>> patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other
On 02/03/2013 12:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other one has
On Wednesday, February 06, 2013 02:54:00 PM Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 02/03/2013 12:04 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears.
On 01/31/2013 02:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
>
> No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
>
> 1. Switch all tunables except "NMI watchdog should
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > and it seemed to me that when the eth cable is plugged in, it would
> > suspend and resume fine. When I then boot, unplug the cable, set all
> > tunables to
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> and it seemed to me that when the eth cable is plugged in, it would
> suspend and resume fine. When I then boot, unplug the cable, set all
> tunables to "Good", suspend to disk and resume, no NMI message. When I
> plug the cable
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:15:12PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Is suspend-to-RAM triggering that as too?
Nope, not really. But, just to confirm: s2r is
echo "shutdown" > /sys/power/disk
echo "mem" > /sys/power/state
right?
Btw, this bug is very strange. So I did a couple more s2disk
On Sunday, February 03, 2013 03:46:56 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
> >
> > The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
>
> Ok, the eth link
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
>
> The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
Ok, the eth link cable hotplugging issue seems fixed, plugging and
unplugging the cable works
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
Ok, the eth link cable hotplugging issue seems fixed, plugging and
unplugging the cable works as
On Sunday, February 03, 2013 03:46:56 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:04:46AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
The [2/5] is at: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2001211/
The other two are attached. I suppose the ordering doesn't matter.
Ok, the eth link cable
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:15:12PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Is suspend-to-RAM triggering that as too?
Nope, not really. But, just to confirm: s2r is
echo shutdown /sys/power/disk
echo mem /sys/power/state
right?
Btw, this bug is very strange. So I did a couple more s2disk runs, i.e.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
and it seemed to me that when the eth cable is plugged in, it would
suspend and resume fine. When I then boot, unplug the cable, set all
tunables to Good, suspend to disk and resume, no NMI message. When I
plug the cable back,
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:06:45PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
and it seemed to me that when the eth cable is plugged in, it would
suspend and resume fine. When I then boot, unplug the cable, set all
tunables to Good,
On 01/31/2013 02:18 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
1. Switch all tunables except NMI watchdog should be turned
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
> > patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other one has to be fixed
> > differently.
> >
> > Boris,
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:10:34 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other one has to be fixed
differently.
Boris, would you
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > And if I pass nmi_watchdog=0 to the image kernel, it should be gone I
> > guess.
>
> How do you pass options the image kernel?
Yep, passing "nmi_watchdog=0" to the kernel (both when you boot and
when you resume) fixes the issue
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:18:05 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
>
> No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
>
> 1. Switch all tunables except
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
1. Switch all tunables except "NMI watchdog should be turned off" to "Good"
2. suspend to disk
3. resume...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
> patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other one has to be fixed
> differently.
>
> Boris, would you be able to test a couple of e1000e patches for me?
Sure, send
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:14:00 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>> On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
exactly
On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
exactly
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:14:00 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 01/31/2013 08:09 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
I think I
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:12:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
Yes, there are two bugs in e1000e, it appears. Konstantin's
patch [2/5] fixes one of them, but the other one has to be fixed
differently.
Boris, would you be able to test a couple of e1000e patches for me?
Sure, send them on.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
1. Switch all tunables except NMI watchdog should be turned off to Good
2. suspend to disk
3. resume... all
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 02:18:05 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 09:28:12AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
And, does it happen if you switch all of them but NMI wtd in there?
No, but something else happens. Here's the whole dance:
1. Switch all tunables except NMI
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 02:18:05PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
And if I pass nmi_watchdog=0 to the image kernel, it should be gone I
guess.
How do you pass options the image kernel?
Yep, passing nmi_watchdog=0 to the kernel (both when you boot and
when you resume) fixes the issue - no
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:54:56AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
> > > exactly which of the power savings cause
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:47:40 AM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
> > exactly which of the power savings cause this.
>
> ... NMI watchdog. If I remove it from the script, the problem
>
On 01/31/2013 12:12 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> I think I will start with commenting parts of `power' script to see
> exactly which of the power savings cause this.
... NMI watchdog. If I remove it from the script, the problem
disappears. If I try it alone, I have those NMIs.
--
js
suse labs
--
To
On 01/30/2013 11:45 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:17:06 PM Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 10:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
What is cool is that I have steps to reproduce:
1) boot
2) run the attached script (turn on all possible power savings
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:17:06 PM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 10:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> What is cool is that I have steps to reproduce:
> >> 1) boot
> >> 2) run the attached script (turn on all possible power savings -- in
> >> fact everything what powertop suggests)
>
On 01/30/2013 10:39 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> What is cool is that I have steps to reproduce:
>> 1) boot
>> 2) run the attached script (turn on all possible power savings -- in
>> fact everything what powertop suggests)
>> 3) suspend to _disk_ (mem is not enough, BIOS apparently has to
>>
On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 09:33:27 PM Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 09:00 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:55PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 01/30/2013 06:44 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>
On 01/30/2013 09:00 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:55PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> On 01/30/2013 06:44 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
You're right, I don't think we're quite ready to merge those
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:55PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 01/30/2013 06:44 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> You're right, I don't think we're quite ready to merge those patches.
> >> But if your NMI is easy to reproduce, it
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> You're right, I don't think we're quite ready to merge those patches.
> But if your NMI is easy to reproduce, it might be worth removing
> e1000e altogether to see if it still happens.
That's the problem - I've seen it only once so
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Konstantin has some fixes for an e1000e power management issue related
>> to suspend/resume that he observed on an x220. He didn't see an NMI,
>> and apparently his problem
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:32:56PM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Konstantin has some fixes for an e1000e power management issue related
to suspend/resume that he observed on an x220. He didn't see an NMI,
and apparently his
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
You're right, I don't think we're quite ready to merge those patches.
But if your NMI is easy to reproduce, it might be worth removing
e1000e altogether to see if it still happens.
That's the problem - I've seen it only once so
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:55PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 01/30/2013 06:44 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:27:42AM -0700, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
You're right, I don't think we're quite ready to merge those patches.
But if your NMI is easy to reproduce, it might be
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
