Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755263AbXI1VZk (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:25:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752832AbXI1VZd (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:25:33 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:48373 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752468AbXI1VZd (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:25:33 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Mark Lord Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:40:22 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , Venkatesh Pallipadi References: <20070922220347.586903979@linutronix.de> <1191011610.18681.94.camel@chaos> <46FD6F83.8070801@rtr.ca> In-Reply-To: <46FD6F83.8070801@rtr.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709282340.23730.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1489 Lines: 38 On Friday, 28 September 2007 23:17, Mark Lord wrote: > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 16:27 -0400, Mark Lord wrote: > .. > >> On a closely related note: I just now submitted a patch to fix SMP-poweroff, > >> by having it do disable_nonboot_cpus before doing poweroff. > >> > >> Which has led me to thinking.. > >> ..are similar precautions perhaps necessary for *all* ACPI BIOS calls? > >> > >> Because one never knows what the other CPUs are doing at the same time, > >> and what the side effects may be on the ACPI BIOS functions. > >> > >> And also, I wonder if at a minimum we should be guaranteeing ACPI BIOS calls > >> only ever happen from CPU#0 (or the "boot" CPU)? Or do we do that already? > > > > The ACPI calls are serialized in the kernel, AFAICT. But the fragile > > situations (suspend, resume, shutdown, reboot) are probably those, where > > some BIOS implementation expect that certain things are not called or > > not active. > > Mmm.. *do* we actually do this for reboot? I don't see it there. > And how about for kexec? > > I'm probably just missing seeing it. Right? Nope. Till now, only hibernation and suspend disabled the nonboot CPUs before invoking the platform firmware. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/