lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 20 Jan 2004 18:11:49 +1100
FromNick Piggin <>
SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug: Hotplug Script And SIGPWR

Tim Hockin wrote:

>On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 05:43:59PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>>I think the sanest thing for a CPU removal is to migrate everything off the
>>>processor in question, move unrunnable tasks into TASK_UNRUNNABLE state,
>>>then notify /sbin/hotplug.  The hotplug script can then find and handle the
>>>unrunnable tasks.  No SIGPWR grossness needed.
>>>
>>>Code against 2.4 at http://www.hockin.org/~thockin/procstate - it was
>>>heavily tested and I *think* it is all correct (for that kernel snapshot).
>>>
>>Seems less robust and more ad hoc than SIGPWR, however.
>>
>
>Disagree.  SIGPWR will kill any process that doesn't catch it.  That's
>policy.  It seems more robust to let the hotplug script decide what to do.
>If it wants to kill each unrunnable task with SIGPWR, it can.  But if it
>wants to let them live, it can.
>

I thought hotplug is allowed to fail? Thus you can have a hung system.
Or what if the hotplug script itself becomes TASK_UNRUNNABLE? What if the
process needs a guaranteed scheduling latency?

(I dropped lhcs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net because its moderated)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:00    [from the cache]
©2003-2008