[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes
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?
Boot CPU, and AFAIK suspend is the only place which does it.

Bill Davidsen <>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot

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: 2007-09-29 19:11    [W:0.111 / U:4.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site