From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Feb 27 17:46:22 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0CB106566B;
	Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:46:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:46:07 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <20120227152238.GA2940@regency.nsu.ru>
	<134870242.175249.1330357669745.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
	<20120227164733.GA12679@regency.nsu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20120227164733.GA12679@regency.nsu.ru>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201202271246.09674.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: "rmacklem@freebsd.org" <rmacklem@freebsd.org>,
	Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Resume broken in 8.3-PRERELEASE
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:46:22 -0000

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