From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993025AbXCIHJE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:09:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993026AbXCIHJE (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:09:04 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:58459 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993025AbXCIHJD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 02:09:03 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Len Brown Subject: Re: [PATCH] swsusp: Disable nonboot CPUs before entering platform suspend Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 08:11:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: shaohua.li@intel.com, Andrew Morton , LKML , Pavel Machek , Dave Jones References: <200703072044.12021.rjw@sisk.pl> <200703080013.05544.rjw@sisk.pl> <200703082011.15706.lenb@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <200703082011.15706.lenb@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200703090811.38559.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, 9 March 2007 02:11, Len Brown wrote: > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 18:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 23:49, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 23:14:29 +0100 > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, 7 March 2007 22:16, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 20:44:11 +0100 > > > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > > > > > > > Prevent the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping() > > > > > > from triggering by disabling nonboot CPUs before we finally enter the platform > > > > > > suspend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > > > --- > > > > > > kernel/power/disk.c | 1 + > > > > > > kernel/power/user.c | 2 +- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2.orig/kernel/power/disk.c > > > > > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/disk.c > > > > > > @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ static void power_down(suspend_disk_meth > > > > > > switch(mode) { > > > > > > case PM_DISK_PLATFORM: > > > > > > if (pm_ops && pm_ops->enter) { > > > > > > + disable_nonboot_cpus(); > > > > > > kernel_shutdown_prepare(SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > > pm_ops->enter(PM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > > break; > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > > =================================================================== > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2.orig/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > > +++ linux-2.6.21-rc2-mm2/kernel/power/user.c > > > > > > @@ -398,9 +398,9 @@ static int snapshot_ioctl(struct inode * > > > > > > > > > > > > case PMOPS_ENTER: > > > > > > if (data->platform_suspend) { > > > > > > + disable_nonboot_cpus(); > > > > > > kernel_shutdown_prepare(SYSTEM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > > error = pm_ops->enter(PM_SUSPEND_DISK); > > > > > > - error = 0; > > > > > > } > > > > > > break; > > > > > > > > > > Is this considered 2.6.21 material? If so why? > > > > > > > > Well, the WARN_ON() in arch/x86_64/kernel/acpi/sleep.c:init_low_mapping() > > > > triggers every time an SMP x86_64 box is suspended to disk using the platform > > > > mode (default), which is quite annoying IMHO and users think something wrong is > > > > going on. This will probably cause them to report the problem and I'd rather > > > > like to avoid handling these reports. ;-) > > > > > > Well sure - if patches were always error-free, we'd always apply them > > > immediately. > > > > > > The question is: is the risk of this patch breaking things exceeded by the > > > benefit which you describe? > > > > Well, it has survived some testing (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/7/16). Also, > > before the code ordering in 2.6.21-rc* we had been running on one CPU > > here, so I think the risk is small. > > > > We could remove the WARN_ON() as Pavel has just suggested, but first I'd like > > to know who put it there and why. > > > > Shaohua added it between 2.6.17 and 2.6.18 > 55b2355eefc2f160246226d4d69fed431173a4d5 Yes, DaveJ has already noticed that, but what it's there for? Rafael