[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:40:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
Cc: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Zhu Guihua <zhugh.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] x86, hotplug: Use zero page for monitor when
resuming from hibernation
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 03:59:06PM +0000, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > > + if (hibernation_in_resume())
> > > + mwait_ptr = empty_zero_page;
> > > + else
> > > + mwait_ptr = ¤t_thread_info()->flags;
> >
> > Why is this conditional? Is there any case in which the zero page is not also
> > correct?
> I'm thinking of avoid unnecessary wakeup for normal CPU offline, for example,
> if one driver uses the zero page and access it.
Writing to the zero page would be a major fail.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists