[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902230926030.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during
suspend-resume
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Linus, do you have a strong opinion about which variant we
> should use?
Strong? No. I think mine is better just because _if_ another CPU is busy
handling an interrupt that we're just now disabling, we'll just go on to
the next interrupt. Waiting for them all at the end is always more
efficient.
But does it really matter? No. In this case I think we've shut down all
other CPU's anyway, so the whole "serialize_irq()" should probably not
even be needed.
Linus
--
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