From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030350AbWFVTwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:52:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932636AbWFVTwW (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:52:22 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:26848 "EHLO mail.goop.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932642AbWFVTwV (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:52:21 -0400 Message-ID: <449AF500.7000106@goop.org> Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:52:32 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060613) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pavel Machek CC: "Randy.Dunlap" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , clameter@sgi.com, ntl@pobox.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, ak@suse.de, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] stop on cpu lost References: <20060620125159.72b0de15.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060621225609.db34df34.akpm@osdl.org> <20060622150848.GL16029@localdomain> <20060622084513.4717835e.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20060623010550.0e26a46e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060622092422.256d6692.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20060622182231.GC4193@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: <20060622182231.GC4193@elf.ucw.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pavel Machek wrote: > That's what I'd prefer... as swsusp uses cpu hotplug. Does it have to? I presume this has been considered before, but what if the other CPUs were just idled for suspend rather than "removed"? Or do you actually need to simulate a hot-remove to make sure they get suspended properly? In general, the "hot remove as suspend" thing seems semantically awkward. J