| 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: <2a27d3730903230015h6cc320bek423764eb496d6b30@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:15:57 +0800 From: Li Yang <leoli@...escale.com> To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: nonboot cpu on SMP suspend On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote: > On Wed 2009-03-18 14:25:32, 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. > > Why do you think it will be faster? _cpu_down() and _cpu_up() are surely complex functions, involving work_queues and synchronization between boot cpu and non-boot cpu. On the contrary, to bring the cpu back to previous state is much simpler. For standby state, you barely need to do anything. For mem state, you only need to restore the registers and states of the CPU. - 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