![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi! > > > Currently, we use the CPU hotplug to disable nonboot CPUs in the suspend code > > > paths, but with the recent change of code ordering (ie. nonboot CPUs are > > > disabled after freezing tasks _and_ devices) it has become quite troublesome. > > > The reason of this is that there are some CPU hotplug notifiers registered and > > > called on each run of cpu_up()/cpu_down() that assume the system to be fully > > > functional, which is not the case during the suspend. Moreover, at least some > > > of them do things that are not really necessary for disabling or enabling the > > > nonboot CPUs.> > > > Right.> > > > > The advantage of using the CPU hotplug (in its current form) for suspending is > > > that if some CPUs don't reappear during the resume, we are safe. Still, I > > > think it would be more appropriate, and simpler in the long run, to notify the > > > interested subsystems _only_ if one (or more) CPUs are not functional after the > > > resume. > > > > I'm afraid that adding 'cpu not there so simulate unplug' path will > > make it complex, and prone to failure, as _noone_ is going to test it.> > Does it mean you think we should stick with the current approach and sort out > all issues as they show up, or should we go for not using the CPU hotplug for > suspending without implementing the 'cpu not there so simulate unplug' path > at all (eg. we can fail the resume instead)? I'd fix the current approach, but... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2007-04-16 09:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||