From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1034147AbcJ0UoX (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:44:23 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:44970 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030256AbcJ0UoT (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Oct 2016 16:44:19 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 22:41:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ville_Syrj=E4l=E4?= cc: Feng Tang , feng.tang@intel.com, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Steven Rostedt , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Rik van Riel , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" , Peter Zijlstra , Arjan van de Ven , Rusty Russell , Oleg Nesterov , Tejun Heo , Andrew Morton , Paul McKenney , Linus Torvalds , Paul Turner , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Zhang, Rui" , Len Brown , Linux PM , Linux ACPI Subject: Re: S3 resume regression [1cf4f629d9d2 ("cpu/hotplug: Move online calls to hotplugged cpu")] In-Reply-To: <20161027203745.GH4617@intel.com> Message-ID: References: <20160526183207.GX4329@intel.com> <20160531072650.GP4329@intel.com> <20160713145425.GB4329@intel.com> <20160809172057.GZ4329@intel.com> <20161027172852.GE4617@intel.com> <20161027192006.GF4617@intel.com> <20161027203745.GH4617@intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="8323329-18361705-1477600880=:4913" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-18361705-1477600880=:4913 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:25:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > So it would be interesting whether that hunk in resume_broadcast() is > > sufficient. > > So far it looks like the answer is yes. > > Looks to be about 5 seconds slower than acpi-idle in resuming, but > I suppose that's not all that surprising ;) Well, set it to 1msec then. If that works reliably then we really can do that unconditionally. There is no harm in firing a useless timer during resume once. > > Does the machine work, when you limit intel idle to C3, which would then > > match acpi idle ? > > I'm pretty sure I had tested all of these, but I just double checked > to make sure. There's no C3 with intel_idle so I limited to C2, but > that did not help. > > Isn't it possible that ACPI C3 is in fact C4? I thought ACPI C-states > are always numbered non-sparsely, and in this case ACPI C3 could be > anything from C3 to C11 (if the processor actually supported such > states obviously). Actually now that I look at the descriptions for > the states in sysfs, it says "MWAIT 0x30" for state3 on both drivers, > which I presume means it's in fact C4 for both. Indeed. Thanks, tglx --8323329-18361705-1477600880=:4913--