From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: shrinking memory for suspend? Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 12:45:04 +0200 Message-ID: <200705031245.05454.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <1177943076.5102.83.camel@johannes.berg> <200705031217.30979.rjw@sisk.pl> <17977.47777.929627.2150@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <17977.47777.929627.2150@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Paul Mackerras Cc: Johannes Berg , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, Pavel Machek List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, 3 May 2007 12:34, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki writes: > > > I think that on a uniprocessor system it's quite safe, but on SMP it doesn't > > seem so. For example, imagine the situation in which one CPU is executing the > > suspend code while another one is running userspace with system calls etc. > > Pretty scary. > > Which is why the powermac/powerbook sleep code insists on there only > being one cpu active. I have an SMP powermac which can sleep; I use a > little script to take the second cpu down before sleeping and bring it > back up after waking up. That's quite intrusive. Ideally, user space processes should not notice that there have been a suspend at one point. Greetings, Rafael