Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:46:07 -0500 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> Cc: "rmacklem@freebsd.org" <rmacklem@freebsd.org>, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Resume broken in 8.3-PRERELEASE Message-ID: <201202271246.09674.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120227164733.GA12679@regency.nsu.ru> References: <20120227152238.GA2940@regency.nsu.ru> <134870242.175249.1330357669745.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <20120227164733.GA12679@regency.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 27 February 2012 11:47 am, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:47:49AM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Yes, I can't think of how r229450 would affect "resume". All it > > does is clear the high order bit in an error reply from an NFS > > server, since that bit should never be set in an NFS error reply > > and, if set, it results in an mbuf list being free'd twice. > > True, although even if it helps triggering the real underlying bug, > it's still weird. > > > The bit is erroneously set by "amd" sometimes. If you are using > > "amd", that might be related to the resume problem? > > No, I don't; I've deliberately disabled almost everything. > > > ps: I suspect you saw it, but there was a recent thread related > > to known suspend/resume issues and discussed how they might be > > fixed in the future. Sorry, I don't remember which list or the > > exact subject line. > > Yes, I know what are you talking about. However, I don't recall if > any one was experiencing the same symptoms as I do. Can you please try head and/or stable/9? FYI, Linux people found that some BIOSes can corrupt low 64KB between suspend/resume, which may cause strangeness like this. I worked around it in head (r231781) and stable/9 (r232088). Thanks, Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202271246.09674.jkim>