lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v0 2/9] suspend: Add getter function to report if freezing is active
Date
On Monday, September 07, 2015 10:55:43 AM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On 09/05/2015 04:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, September 04, 2015 03:34:55 PM Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> Instead encode the FREEZE state via the CPU state we allow the
> >> interesting subsystems (MCE, microcode) to query the power
> >> subsystem directly.
> >
> > A use case, please.
>
> The motivation for this change is to reduce the complexity in the
> hotplug code. As tried to point out in the cover letter, the FROZEN
> bits have only a bunch of users after all those years (2007). So it is
> worth to have all the notifier users to handle the FROZEN state?
>
> Don't know if that counts as use case.
>
> >> Most notifiers are not interested at all
> >> in this information so rather have explicit calls to freeze_active()
> >> instead adding complexity to the rest of the users of the CPU
> >> notifiers.
> >
> > Why does it has anything to do with CPU notifiers?
>
> cpu_{down|up} will call the notifiers with the CPU_TASK_FROZEN bit set
> and so most notifiers are doing
>
> switch (actcion ~CPU_TASK_FROZEN)
>
> to filter it out because they don't need to handle the system wide
> ongoing freeze operations.
>
> > We don't offline CPUs for suspend-to-idle.
>
> Sure. As I said the motivation is to reduce the complexity in the
> hotplug code.

Well, it looks like I confused two things.

Let me look at this again.

Thanks,
Rafael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-07 15:21    [W:0.059 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site