Re: [patch 0/2] suspend/resume regression fixes

[Mark Lord]

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?

Cheers
-
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/