[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
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote:
>> 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.

Mmm.. *do* we actually do this for reboot? I don't see it there.
And how about for kexec?

I'm probably just missing seeing it. Right?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-09-28 23:21    [W:0.072 / U:27.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site