| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2a27d3730903190018h1a0f5b6asf5cf2002fe3504fb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:18:27 +0800 From: Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com> To: chen gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: nonboot cpu on SMP suspend 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 - Leo -- 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