linux-kernel - Re: nonboot cpu on SMP suspend

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:30:58 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com>
Cc:	chen gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nonboot cpu on SMP suspend

On Thursday 19 March 2009, Li Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM, chen gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki 写道:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday 18 March 2009, Li Yang wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm curious why we need to un-plug all the nonboot cpus before suspend
> >>> and start them all over again after the suspend(ACPI sleep)?  I mean
> >>> if we can bring the booting cpu back to the exact state as before
> >>> suspend, why can't we just do the same for non-booting cpus?  And that
> >>> will be much faster.  Any thought?  Thanks.
> >>
> >> Because we need to enter the BIOS with one CPU on-line only.
> >>
> > You mean only one CPU can be supported by BIOS when suspend/resume ?
> 
> If so, is it a defect of x86 BIOS?  And is it true that for other
> architectures without a BIOS there won't be such a limitation if the
> boot code is sane?  Thanks

I think that is a limitation of x86 BIOS and I don't know enough about the
other architectures to comment.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
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/