lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes
From
Date
On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module,
> >> which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this
> >> worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks.
> >>
> >> I really hope that this two patches finally set an end to the "jinxed
> >> VAIO heisenbug series", which started when we removed the periodic
> >> tick with the clockevents/dyntick patches.
> >
> > Ok, so the patches look fine, but I somehow have this slight feeling that
> > you gave up a bit too soon on the "*why* does this happen?" question.
>
> On a closely related note: I just now submitted a patch to fix SMP-poweroff,
> by having it do disable_nonboot_cpus before doing poweroff.
>
> Which has led me to thinking..
> ..are similar precautions perhaps necessary for *all* ACPI BIOS calls?
>
> Because one never knows what the other CPUs are doing at the same time,
> and what the side effects may be on the ACPI BIOS functions.
>
> And also, I wonder if at a minimum we should be guaranteeing ACPI BIOS calls
> only ever happen from CPU#0 (or the "boot" CPU)? Or do we do that already?

The ACPI calls are serialized in the kernel, AFAICT. But the fragile
situations (suspend, resume, shutdown, reboot) are probably those, where
some BIOS implementation expect that certain things are not called or
not active.

tglx


-
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: 2007-09-28 22:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans