Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758120AbXI2RHy (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755058AbXI2RHs (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:48 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:40244 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754705AbXI2RHr (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:47 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Bill Davidsen Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:12:57 -0400 Message-ID: <46FE8799.3090108@tmr.com> References: <20070922220347.586903979@linutronix.de> <46FD639D.9030301@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org Cc: Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Len Brown , Venkatesh Pallipadi , "Rafael J. Wysocki" X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-70-109-100-63.alb.east.verizon.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061105 SeaMonkey/1.0.6 In-Reply-To: <46FD639D.9030301@rtr.ca> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1688 Lines: 37 Mark Lord wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> My final enlightment was, when I removed the ACPI processor module, >>> which controls the lower idle C-states, right before resume; this >>> worked fine all the time even without all the workaround hacks. >>> >>> I really hope that this two patches finally set an end to the "jinxed >>> VAIO heisenbug series", which started when we removed the periodic >>> tick with the clockevents/dyntick patches. >> >> Ok, so the patches look fine, but I somehow have this slight feeling >> that you gave up a bit too soon on the "*why* does this happen?" >> question. > > 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? > Boot CPU, and AFAIK suspend is the only place which does it. -- Bill Davidsen "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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/