Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Wright
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > Sorry for the misunderstanding, I thought the breakage might be introduced > between 15f7176eb1cccec0a332541285ee752b935c1c85 and > 0a0c5168df270a50e3518e4f12bddb31f8f5f38f, so I thought it would be a good > idea to verify if 0a0c5168df270a50e3518e4f12bdd

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote: > * Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote: > > > * Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > > > > This may be caused by the recent PM changes. Can you please test if > > > > commit > > > > 8efb8c7

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Wright
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote: > > * Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > > > This may be caused by the recent PM changes. Can you please test if > > > commit > > > 8efb8c76fcdccf5050c0ea059dac392789baaff2 is fine? > > > > I just

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Chris Wright wrote: > * Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > > This may be caused by the recent PM changes. Can you please test if commit > > 8efb8c76fcdccf5050c0ea059dac392789baaff2 is fine? > > I just tested on my t400, it's not[1]. See same symptoms as Arkadiu

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Wright
* Rafael J. Wysocki (r...@sisk.pl) wrote: > This may be caused by the recent PM changes. Can you please test if commit > 8efb8c76fcdccf5050c0ea059dac392789baaff2 is fine? I just tested on my t400, it's not[1]. See same symptoms as Arkadiusz. Seems as if it responds to initial apci event, I see s

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > > Hi, > > After some recent merge to Linus tree resume from ram on my thinkpad t400 > stopped working. My latest test was done on today Linus git master tree. > > I'm closing lid, it suspends according to "moon" led. When I open lid I se

Re: 2.6.29 git, resume from ram broken on thinkpad

2009-04-01 Thread Chris Wright
* Arkadiusz Miskiewicz (a.miskiew...@gmail.com) wrote: > and this as bad commit: > > 7f7ace0cda64c99599c23785f8979a072e118058 is first bad commit Does it make any difference if you roll fwd a couple commits to: 802bf931f2688ad125b73db597ce63cc842fb27a That fixes a possible problem with the cpum

Re: [patch 6/6] Guest page hinting: s390 support.

2009-04-01 Thread Rik van Riel
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > From: Martin Schwidefsky > From: Hubertus Franke > From: Himanshu Raj > > s390 uses the milli-coded ESSA instruction to set the page state. The > page state is formed by four guest page states called block usage states > and three host page states called block content

Re: [patch 5/6] Guest page hinting: minor fault optimization.

2009-04-01 Thread Rik van Riel
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > From: Martin Schwidefsky > From: Hubertus Franke > From: Himanshu Raj > > On of the challenges of the guest page hinting scheme is the cost for > the state transitions. If the cost gets too high the whole concept of > page state information is in question. Therefore i

Re: [patch 4/6] Guest page hinting: writable page table entries.

2009-04-01 Thread Rik van Riel
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:25:34 -0400 > Rik van Riel wrote: > >> Martin Schwidefsky wrote: >> >> This code has me stumped. Does it mean that if a page already >> has the PageWritable bit set (and count_ok stays 0), we will >> always mark the page as volatile? >> >> How d

Re: [patch 4/6] Guest page hinting: writable page table entries.

2009-04-01 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:25:34 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > This code has me stumped. Does it mean that if a page already > has the PageWritable bit set (and count_ok stays 0), we will > always mark the page as volatile? > > How does that work out on !s390? No, we w

Re: [patch 4/6] Guest page hinting: writable page table entries.

2009-04-01 Thread Rik van Riel
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: This code has me stumped. Does it mean that if a page already has the PageWritable bit set (and count_ok stays 0), we will always mark the page as volatile? How does that work out on !s390? > /** > + * __page_check_writable() - check page state for new writable pte >

Re: [patch 3/6] Guest page hinting: mlocked pages.

2009-04-01 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:52:04 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > From: Martin Schwidefsky > > From: Hubertus Franke > > From: Himanshu Raj > > > > Add code to get mlock() working with guest page hinting. The problem > > with mlock is that locked pages may not be removed f

Re: [patch 2/6] Guest page hinting: volatile swap cache.

2009-04-01 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:10:48 -0400 Rik van Riel wrote: > Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > From: Martin Schwidefsky > > From: Hubertus Franke > > From: Himanshu Raj > > > > The volatile page state can be used for anonymous pages as well, if > > they have been added to the swap cache and the swap w