[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1905311633310.1962@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 16:33:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/power: Fix 'nosmt' vs. hibernation triple fault
during resume
On Fri, 31 May 2019, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > 2. Put the CPU all the way to sleep by sending it an INIT IPI.
> >
> > Version 2 seems very simple and robust. Is there a reason we can't do
> > it? We obviously don't want to do it for normal offline because it
> > might be a high-power state, but a cpu in the wait-for-SIPI state is
> > not going to exit that state all by itself.
> >
> > The patch to implement #2 should be short and sweet as long as we are
> > careful to only put genuine APs to sleep like this. The only downside
> > I can see is that an new kernel resuming and old kernel that was
> > booted with nosmt is going to waste power, but I don't think that's a
> > showstopper.
>
> Well, if *that* is not an issue, than the original 3-liner that just
> forces them to 'hlt' [1] would be good enough as well.
Actually no, scratch that, I misunderstood your proposal, sorry.
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists