From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paul.mckenney@linaro.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mail List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression 3.4] tick_broadcast_mask is not restored after a CPU has been offline/onlined
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:08:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120730170847.GE2391@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120730230747.7637112a@feng-i7>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:07:47PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:39:13 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:15:59PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > When I debugged a suspend/resume bug, I found that tick_broadcast_mask is
> > > not restored for a CPU after it is offline/onlined since kernel 3.4, while
> > > it's fine for 3.3.
> >
> > Could you please try 3.5?
>
> Yes, it's the same for 3.5
Thank you for checking, Feng.
Len, the comment above the change says:
/*
* FIXME: Design the ACPI notification to make it once per
* system instead of once per-cpu. This condition is a hack
* to make the code that updates C-States be called once.
*/
Is it time for this design-level change? Or is there something obvious
that I missed when fixing the smp_processor_id() splat?
I could revert back, but use raw_smp_processor_id() rather than
smp_processor_id(), but that feels like papering over a problem rather
than fixing it.
Thoughts?
Thanx, Paul
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-30 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120730151559.772d4055@feng-i7>
2012-07-30 13:39 ` [Regression 3.4] tick_broadcast_mask is not restored after a CPU has been offline/onlined Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-30 15:07 ` Feng Tang
2012-07-30 17:08 ` Paul E. McKenney [this message]
2012-07-30 17:42 ` Paul E. McKenney
2012-07-31 3:18 ` Feng Tang
2012-07-31 4:09 ` Paul E. McKenney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120730170847.GE2391@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--to=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.mckenney@linaro.org \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox