From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754029AbZBWR3t (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:29:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751610AbZBWR3k (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:29:40 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57898 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751557AbZBWR3j (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:29:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds X-X-Sender: torvalds@localhost.localdomain To: Ingo Molnar cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Johannes Berg , LKML , "Eric W. Biederman" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , pm list , Len Brown , Jesse Barnes , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume In-Reply-To: <20090223171630.GA28651@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902230048.33635.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090223083645.GA9582@elte.hu> <200902231229.58743.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090223171630.GA28651@elte.hu> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Linus, do you have a strong opinion about which variant we > should use? Strong? No. I think mine is better just because _if_ another CPU is busy handling an interrupt that we're just now disabling, we'll just go on to the next interrupt. Waiting for them all at the end is always more efficient. But does it really matter? No. In this case I think we've shut down all other CPU's anyway, so the whole "serialize_irq()" should probably not even be needed. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:28:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <200902221837.49396.rjw@sisk.pl> <200902230048.33635.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090223083645.GA9582@elte.hu> <200902231229.58743.rjw@sisk.pl> <20090223171630.GA28651@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090223171630.GA28651@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , LKML , Jesse Barnes , Thomas Gleixner , "Eric W. Biederman" , Johannes Berg , pm list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > Linus, do you have a strong opinion about which variant we > should use? Strong? No. I think mine is better just because _if_ another CPU is busy handling an interrupt that we're just now disabling, we'll just go on to the next interrupt. Waiting for them all at the end is always more efficient. But does it really matter? No. In this case I think we've shut down all other CPU's anyway, so the whole "serialize_irq()" should probably not even be needed. Linus