2012/6/2 Mitsuru IWASAKI <iwas...@jp.freebsd.org>: > Hi, > > Well I think we are ready to have x86/acpica/acpi_wakeup.c to share > acpi_sleep_machdep() and acpi_wakeup_machdep() between amd64 and i386. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~iwasaki/acpi/x86-acpi_wakeup-20120602.diff > > There are no functional changes. The following is major changes. > amd64: > - Add suspend/resume related members in PCB. > - Add suspendctx() in cpu_switch.S. > - acpi_switch.S moved into cpu_switch.S as resumectx(). > > amd64, i386: > - Add pcb_flags bit PCB_SUSPENDING to indicate AP is wakeup or not.
I still didn't review your patch in detail, but I think PCB_SUSPENDING is not really the way it should be done. PCB datas are about the thread state on a particular CPU and the suspension of the CPU has not much to do with the thread state. It should be more a CPU state itself. This area is very weak in FreeBSD right now, however, but I will try to dump my thinking on it right now. The first thing to consider is that right now we only have 2 states for CPUs: started and stopped. These states are controlled by started_cpus and stopped_cpus masks respectively. It seems you really want to add an intermediate level among the 2 where you have: started -> suspended -> started -> suspended ... -> stopped and you need to expand the mechanism for dealing with started and stopped cpus to do that. I'm pretty sure this will be very helpful also for other architectures that want to do the same. This is however a larger patch and you want probabilly implement it in a second round of changes. For the moment dropping the paranoid check on PCB_SUPENDING is good enough in order to evaluate the merge of the amd64/i386. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
