2004-01-01 08:09:49

by Benjamin Herrenschmidt

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: How to avoid 'lost interrupt' messages post-resume?

On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 15:41, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I have Software Suspend successfully running under 2.4.23 on a dual
> Celeron at OSDL, with only one outstanding issue: sometimes, after
> copying back the original kernel, I see 'hda: lost interrupt' and after
> another pause 'hdb:lost interrupt' messages. Apart from that, everything
> works fine (the machine has just suspended for the 46th time on the
> trot). I'm wanting to know if there's something I can do to fix this
> issue.
>
> Currently, prior to suspending, I set all irq affinities to CPU 0 (which
> does the suspend), save the state of the APICs and disable them and
> disable interrupts. At resume time, I again set the affinities to CPU 0
> and disable the APICs and interrupts prior to copying the original
> kernel back. After copying the original kernel back, I restore the
> original (pre-suspend) affinities and APIC settings & reenable
> interrupts (incomplete list). I'm no hardware expert, so feel free to
> tell me I'm doing something lame! Apart from these lost interrupts, all
> seems to work just fine.

You probably had a pending IDE request or something like that... IDE
in 2.4.x doesn't quite have the infrastructure to deal properly with
suspend & resume...

Ben.


2004-01-01 19:08:54

by Nigel Cunningham

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: How to avoid 'lost interrupt' messages post-resume?

Thanks for the reply.

I'll look into that area some more.

Regards,

Nigel

On Thu, 2004-01-01 at 21:09, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> You probably had a pending IDE request or something like that... IDE
> in 2.4.x doesn't quite have the infrastructure to deal properly with
> suspend & resume...

--
My work on Software Suspend is graciously brought to you by
LinuxFund.org.

2004-01-01 23:00:02

by Benjamin Herrenschmidt

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: How to avoid 'lost interrupt' messages post-resume?

On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 06:07, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I'll look into that area some more.

Let me know what you find, I may be able to help you getting
it right, though it' a bit difficult to do generically in 2.4

Ben.