![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Rusty Russell wrote: > Wrong migration thread. The migration thread on CPU 1 has been asked to > push into CPU 0, which is now going down. you are right - this one place would have to be aware of CPUs going away. > Now I've slept on the "do it atomically" idea, I think it's a good one. > I've even worked out how to maintain the "last thread on CPU is the idle > thread", although I'd need to test in code. good! > In practice, any app which wants to scale with # CPUs needs to know when > CPUs are coming up, as well as going down. Ditto memory, etc. This > means they need to listen for the hotplug event (DBUS anyone?), or we > introduce a SIGRECONF (default ignored). But AFAICT, introducing a new > signal isn't possible (at least on x86) without breaking glibc. you can introduce a variable RT signal for this purpose no problem - and one would want to have a queued signal for this anyway. Ie. by default the notification is disabled, but a new syscall sets up the process to be notified of CPU up/down events, on a signal # picked by the app. But this this indeed is dbus domain ... Ingo - 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 | |||||||||||||