[PATCH] UBUNTU: SAUCE: PM: Increase TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS to avoidfalse kernel oops on resume

Mario_Limonciello at Dell.com Mario_Limonciello at Dell.com
Mon Mar 23 14:51:09 UTC 2009

Matter of fact the change for the 5 seconds for sata links has landed
upstream now:



-----Original Message-----
From: kernel-team-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com
[mailto:kernel-team-bounces at lists.ubuntu.com] On Behalf Of Tim Gardner
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:07 AM
To: Andy Whitcroft
Cc: kernel-team
avoidfalse kernel oops on resume

Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 10:59:03AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> TJ wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 10:20 +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>> Andy Whitcroft wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 08:43:13AM +0000, TJ wrote:
>>>>>> Bug: # 286672
>>>>> We are seeing a number of reports triggered by this.  The code
>>>>> about using a WARN_ON to get the proper focus, but its not clear
that it
>>>>> achieves that.  Escpecially as this is now going to trigger
>>>>> I believe.  This does look like a reasonable approach.  I wonder
if 12
>>>>> is too close to the expected range.  Perhaps 15 or 30 are more
>>>>> places to start producing serious errors.
>>>>> -apw
>>>> Probably 15. But i guess, whether by kerneloops or not, we probably

>>>> get the bugs reported anyways. Waiting for more than around 5s for 
>>>> resume makes me start getting impatient at least.
>>>> Stefan
>>> I chose 12 seconds because I want to be sure to not lose any real
>>> At 12 seconds I'm already feeling a bit apprehensive - my original
>>> thought was it'd be 9 seconds but the few reports that went over 10
>>> (SATA link delays) persuaded me to push it up slightly more.
>>> We don't have sufficient quantity of reports from Jaunty in
>>> for me to feel confident of going higher without missing real
>> Andy, havn't we spoken lately of this. IIRC we wanted felt that there

>> might be issues that still some soft resets are take slightly too
>> which cause recovery to do a hard reset wlightly before the soft one
>> done. Which then confuses the disk completely. And that it might be a

>> good idea to add debugging to see the events during recovery. But I
>> not sure we already did anything.
> Yes indeed we have yet to do anything here.
> -apw

We twiddled with the SATA soft reset timeout so that it is compliant
with the spec in Jaunty commit b65db6fd5d341d27f6d3f62c2b111ca0df0c6dee.
 Are we still seeing link restarts that exceed this time?

Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com

kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team at lists.ubuntu.com

More information about the kernel-team mailing list