[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5450253B.5020802@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:22:35 +0800
From: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org >> Linux PM list"
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] PM / Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state
On 2014/10/28 16:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 03:52:17PM +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
>> Both clocksource and clockevents are not per-cpu device, why do we need
>> to run their suspend callback on *each* cpu?
>
> Uhm, you mean to say we don't use per-cpu timer lists and per-cpu timer
> hardware for clockevents then?
>
>From OS level, currently tick device is per-cpu implementation while
clocksource and clockevent devices are global device.
We already stop tick by clockevents_notify(suspend) on each cpu, that
addresses per-cpu timer list.
And, we already call clocksource_suspend() and clockevents_suspend() in
timekeeping_suspend() on the tick timer CPU. Yes, we didn't suspend
per-cpu timer hardware on x86 because x86 does not have lapic timer
suspend implementation. If we need to implement this, I think we can do
the cross-CPU calls in clocksource/clockevents suspend(), but I didn't
see any necessary we need to do this now.
so, I think we are okay now, :)
Thanks,
-Aubrey
--
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