Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes

[Bill Davidsen]

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@xxxxxxx>
  "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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/