Hi!
> Currently, we use the CPU hotplug to disable nonboot CPUs in the suspend code
> paths, but with the recent change of code ordering (ie. nonboot CPUs are
> disabled after freezing tasks _and_ devices) it has become quite troublesome.
> The reason of this is that there are some CPU hotplug notifiers registered and
> called on each run of cpu_up()/cpu_down() that assume the system to be fully
> functional, which is not the case during the suspend. Moreover, at least some
> of them do things that are not really necessary for disabling or enabling the
> nonboot CPUs.
Right.
> The advantage of using the CPU hotplug (in its current form) for suspending is
> that if some CPUs don't reappear during the resume, we are safe. Still, I
> think it would be more appropriate, and simpler in the long run, to notify the
> interested subsystems _only_ if one (or more) CPUs are not functional after
> the
> resume.
I'm afraid that adding 'cpu not there so simulate unplug' path will
make it complex, and prone to failure, as _noone_ is going to test it.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
