From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992777AbXCHAU5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:20:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992782AbXCHAU5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:20:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:46440 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992777AbXCHAU4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:20:56 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 19:20:24 -0500 From: Dave Jones To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , Pavel Machek , Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: Disable nonboot CPUs before entering platform suspend Message-ID: <20070308002024.GF31910@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , LKML , Pavel Machek , Shaohua Li References: <200703072044.12021.rjw@sisk.pl> <200703072314.30265.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070307144903.6e196b88.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200703080013.05544.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703080013.05544.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 12:13:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping() > > > triggers every time an SMP x86_64 box is suspended to disk using the platform > > > mode (default), which is quite annoying IMHO and users think something wrong is > > > going on. This will probably cause them to report the problem and I'd rather > > > like to avoid handling these reports. ;-) > > > > Well sure - if patches were always error-free, we'd always apply them > > immediately. > > > > The question is: is the risk of this patch breaking things exceeded by the > > benefit which you describe? > > Well, it has survived some testing (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/7/16). Also, > before the code ordering in 2.6.21-rc* we had been running on one CPU > here, so I think the risk is small. > > We could remove the WARN_ON() as Pavel has just suggested, but first I'd like > to know who put it there and why. It was introduced as part of .. commit 55b2355eefc2f160246226d4d69fed431173a4d5 Author: Shaohua Li Date: Fri Jun 23 02:04:49 2006 -0700 [PATCH] don't use flush_tlb_all in suspend time flush_tlb_all uses on_each_cpu, which will disable/enable interrupt. In suspend/resume time, this will make interrupt wrongly enabled. Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li Cc: Pavel Machek Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk