Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes | Date | Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:12:57 -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? > Boot CPU, and AFAIK suspend is the only place which does it.
-- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> "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 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/
| |