Tuesday, November 3, 2015

gc_v4.3_0463_0 patch released

The "zero" version of -gc patch for 4.3 kernel has been released at bitbucket download page. It's a single patch file you can apply upon vanilla kernel source tree. I'm working on the rest of commits on -gc branch and waiting for upstream patch updates for v4.3 before pushing the -gc branch to public git.

Pls report back if you have issue with the patch, I'm still looking at the minor changes and may bump the version to "one" when it's official released.

BR Alfred


  1. Hi, Alfred,
    I've tested it after the BFQ for 4.3.0 was out, together with the latest -rc patch from TuxOnIce. Compiled well.
    As I don't want to blame someone special, please, can you review the patches that you introduced for kernel 4.2.4?
    Since then my TuxOnIce hibernation fails too often, with 4.3.0 it fails always.
    With my simple "preliminary/proposal" patch, the kernel 4.2.4 works fine.

    Thanks in advance, Manuel Krause

    1. @Manuel
      Review the 4.2.4 sync-up commit again and the most likely related change is

      @@ -5700,6 +5708,14 @@ static int sched_cpu_active(struct notifier_block *nfb,
      unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
      switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
      + case CPU_ONLINE:
      + /*
      + * At this point a starting CPU has marked itself as online via
      + * set_cpu_online(). But it might not yet have marked itself
      + * as active, which is essential from here on.
      + *
      + * Thus, fall-through and help the starting CPU along.
      + */

      You can try to revert it and see how it goes with you.

      BR Alfred

    2. Thank you for investing your time to review. Unfortunately, reverting this hunk doesn't heal it for 4.3.0.
      I assume it's the same scenario we had some weeks ago, remember the timing issue for my i915 graphics, and there were some automatic dependency CONFIG changes related to it in 4.3.0. I'm having a closer look at them next.
      The "minor v4.3 sync-up update" you describe in your newest thread... is it related somehow and maybe supposed to fix my issue? I'm going to test the new -gc, too, but already estimate, that I finally need(!) -vrq.

      Best regards, and thank you for your work!