From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753589Ab1JJRPn (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:15:43 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:48293 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752689Ab1JJRPl (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:15:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:14:37 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Alan Stern , "rjw@sisk.pl" , "len.brown@intel.com" , "tj@kernel.org" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "suresh.b.siddha@intel.com" , "lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi" , "rusty@rustcorp.com.au" , "rdunlap@xenotime.net" , "vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "ashok.raj@intel.com" , "tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Freezer, CPU hotplug, x86 Microcode: Fix task freezing failures Message-ID: <20111010171437.GA11907@elf.ucw.cz> References: <4E931018.8030904@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20111010165343.GA29261@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111010165343.GA29261@aftab> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > The seems like entirely the wrong way to go about solving this problem. > > > > > > The kernel shouldn't be responsible for making hotplug stress tests > > > exclusive with system sleep. Whoever is running those tests should be > > > smart enough to realize what's wrong if system sleep interferes with a > > > test. > > Yes, agreed. And more: I'm still trying to understand why a test case > like that is relevant and needs to be fixed at all. Let me re-formulate > the question: what real world scenario(s) does the case of hibernating > _while_ off- and onlining cores cover? Or are you simply doing kernel > resiliency testing and thought that offlining cores while hibernating > might make sense? Some people want to do hibernate on battery low / UPS fail. That can happen any time... -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html