Hi, It was a long weekend in India due to some holidays and so couldn't reply.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brande...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/14/2014 10:07 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Suspend and hotplug are two very different things and if we start > crossing those wires bad things are going to happen IMHO. > > In "normal" operation using the suspend path to do this work could > work in principal but doesn't handle the case where the user does > echo 0 | sudo tee /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online > > Trying force hotplug and suspend into a common mechanism would > lead to a bunch of special case code or a significant rework of the > core code IMHO. What you said is correct, we shouldn't do it. But what I am asking for is a bit different. The stuff we are doing in core on system suspend isn't actually related to suspend but only CPU online/offline. There are platforms which want to set CPUs to a particular frequency before they are taken out by disable_nonboot_cpus. And then there are platforms which want to do similar thing when CPUs are taken down with help of sysfs files. But there is a common baseline there: Set CPUs to a particular P-state before they are taken down. And so I wanted to keep a common solution for both these requirements. > This is guaranteed by the hardware. Each core has its own MSR for P state > request. Any coordination that is required between cores to select the > package P state is handled by the hardware. I see.. Let me send some patches which I have in my mind and then we can decide which set looks more reasonable :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/