[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46FD6F83.8070801@rtr.ca>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:17:55 -0400
From: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes
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?
Cheers
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists