Re: [PATCH -mm][resend] Disable CPU hotplug during suspend

[Nathan Lynch]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday 28 July 2006 20:20, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND_SMP
> > > +static cpumask_t frozen_cpus;
> > > +
> > > +int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	int cpu, error = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	/* We take all of the non-boot CPUs down in one shot to avoid races
> > > +	 * with the userspace trying to use the CPU hotplug at the same time
> > > +	 */
> > > +	mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
> > > +	cpus_clear(frozen_cpus);
> > > +	printk("Disabling non-boot CPUs ...\n");
> > > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > +		if (cpu == 0)
> > > +			continue;
> > 
> > Assuming cpu 0 is online is not okay in generic code.
> 
> Absolutely.  Thanks for pointing this out.
> 
> > This should be something like:
> > 
> > 	int cpu, first_cpu, error = 0;
> > 
> > 	/* We take all of the non-boot CPUs down in one shot to avoid races
> > 	 * with the userspace trying to use the CPU hotplug at the same time
> > 	 */
> > 	mutex_lock(&cpu_add_remove_lock);
> > 	cpus_clear(frozen_cpus);
> > 	first_cpu = first_cpu(cpu_online_mask);
> > 	printk("Disabling non-boot CPUs ...\n");
> > 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > 		if (cpu == first_cpu)
> > 			continue;
>
> 
> I'm not quite sure if we can finish with CPU0 offline.  Perhaps it's
> better to check if CPU0 is online and bring it up if not and then
> continue or return an error if that fails?

You can't assume that cpu 0 is even present in generic code. :-)

But maybe I'm misunderstanding the motivation for using cpu 0 here.  I
had assumed it was because on i386 (and others?) the BSP can't be
offlined.  Is there some other reason?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/