![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 | |||||||||||||