Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes | Date | Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:40:22 +0200 |
| |
On Friday, 28 September 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote: > 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?
Nope.
Till now, only hibernation and suspend disabled the nonboot CPUs before invoking the platform firmware.
Greetings, Rafael - 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/
| |