Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2e70a6e2-23a6-dbf2-4911-1e382469c9cb@gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0WqdfCv=EGi5qU5w6Dqh2NHQF2y_uF4i57Z9v=NoHHwPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0X_TpRPSR9XRikkYxHSA4vZsFr7WH_pEyq6npNjobdRVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <11dc5f68-b253-913a-4219-f6780c8967a0@intel.com> <594c424c-2474-5e2c-9ede-7e7dc68282d5@gmail.com>
 <CAM6Zs0XzBvoNFa5CSAaEEBBJHcxvguZFRqVOVdr5+JDE=PVGVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908100811160.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <fbcf3c93-3868-2b0e-b831-43fa68c48d6c@gmail.com> <CAM6Zs0WLQG90EQ+38NE1Nv8bcnbxW8wO4oEfxSuu4dLhfT1YZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121917460.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908121917460.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Woody Suwalski <terraluna977@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:19:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAM6Zs0UoHZyBkY9-RLdO-W+u09RZPbzq-A-K01sHyRkfoEiYTA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kernel 5.3.x, 5.2.2+: VMware player suspend on 64/32 bit guests
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:24 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Woody Suwalski wrote:
>
> > I have added a timeout counter in __synchronize_hardirq().
> > At the bottom I have converted while(inprogress); to while(inprogress
> > && timeout++ < 100);
> >
> > That is bypassing the suspend lockup problem. On both 32-bit and
> > 64-bit VMs the countdown is triggered by sync of irq9.
>
> So ACPI triggered an interrupt, which got already forwarded to a CPU, but
> it is not handled. That's more than strange.
>
> > Which probably means that there is some issue in ACPI handler and
> > synchronize_hardirq() is stuck on it?
>
> 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?
>
Thomas, Rafael

A. Learning the Wonderfull World of Gmail Web Interface. Maybe w/o top
posting this time....
B. On 5.3-rc4 problem is gone. I guess it is overall good sign.
C. To recreate problem I went back to 5.2.4. The WARN_ON trace shows
(in reverse):
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
do_syscall_64
ksys_write
vfs_write
kernfs_fop_write
state_store
pm_suspend.cold.3
suspend_devices_and_enter
dpm_suspend_noirq
suspend_device_irqs
?ktime_get
?synchronize
synchronize_irq
__synchronize_hardirq.cold.9

Comm: systemd-sleep

Would that help?
Thanks, Woody