lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:09 +0100
FromAndi Kleen <>
SubjectRe: for_each_online_cpu broken ?
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:28:44AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 04:22:05PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> 
>  > > Yep, I noticed it offers a maximum of 6 cpus on my way.
>  > > As a sidenote, seems kinda funny (and wasteful maybe?), doing this
>  > > on a lot of hardware that isn't hotplug capable. (Whilst I could
>  > > disable cpu hotplug in my local build, this isn't an answer for
>  > > a generic distro kernel).
>  > 
>  > Both suspend to disk (and suspend to ram?) implementations now depend on
>  > hotplug_cpu to enable extra cpus, so there is at least one reason for
>  > them to want hotplug support in a generic kernel.
> 
> You mean suspend -> plug in a new cpu -> resume transitions ?
> That sounds *terrifying*.

No, they unplug all non BP CPUs before suspending. 
It obviously doesn't require additional CPUs though.


-Andi
-
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: 2005-12-08 07:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2008