Re: x86-microcode: get rid of set_cpus_allowed()

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:40:10PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 07:44:37AM +0100, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 10 March 2009 06:08:59 Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > here is a possible candidate for Rusty's cpumask-refactored series.
> > > > Note the [*] remark below though.
> > > 
> > > Ah, OK, I'll drop my version then (below) in favor of this, and will
> > > push to Ingo with the others if he doesn't take it directly.
> > 
> > Sorry guys -- for the late reply --
> > but I missed Dmitry's mail due to some silly mail filtering and had to
> > restore his mail ...
> > 
> > Now I've tested both patches and both seem to reliably prevent
> > microcode updates on CPU1 and CPU2 of an Phenom X3 after
> > suspend/resume. (Just CPU0 was updated.)
> > 
> > Then I've tested mainline kernel w/o your patches and I've observed
> > similar problems. I've seen that sometimes ucode of CPU0 was not
> > updated and sometimes CPU1 and CPU2 were not updated.
> > 
> > I'll look into this asap.
> 
> Some further testing seem to indicate that suspend/resume does not
> work when I have done CPU hotplug before.
> 
> During today's tests I did:
> 
> (1) set offline/online CPU 1 and 2
> (2) perform suspend/resume afterwards
> 
> After that microcode update failed on some CPUs when performing
> suspend/resume. (When skipping step 1, microcode update during
> suspend/resume works.)
> 
> Looks strange, but should be debuggable.

That's with latest tip:master? Which commit should be reverted?

	Ingo