[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201101232128.03007.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:28:02 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux-pm mailing list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/11] ACPI: Fixes and cleanups related to iomaps management
On Sunday, January 23, 2011, Jeff Chua wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2011, Jeff Chua wrote:
> >> 2011/1/22 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>:
> >> > On Saturday, January 22, 2011, Jeff Chua wrote:
> >>
> >> > means that my patch [11/11] _and_ the replacement are totally wrong, because you have
> >> > _multiple_ NVS regions. That really helped, thanks a lot.
> >>
> >> Would it be different if I offline all CPUs before suspending to ram?
> >> It seems to help with suspending to disk.
> >
> > No, that doesn't matter. NVS regions are just sitting there regardless of
> > what happens at run time.
>
> Strange. If I didn't offline, it hanged during suspend even without
> thinkpad_acpi. I could see that the suspend code does the offline
> automatically, but executing the offline before calling suspend makes
> it no hanging.
That means there's a problem in the CPU hotplug code that manifests itslef
during suspend. Is this 100% reproducible? Did it happen with 2.6.37?
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists