Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: for_each_online_cpu broken ? | From | Nigel Cunningham <> | Date | Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:03:30 +1000 |
| |
Hi.
On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 16:28, 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*.
Andi is right, it's just a logical unplug. But having said that, I suppose extra cpus could be plugged/unplugged during a suspend to disk. Not that I've ever tried it. I have a real SMP mobo, but haven't had the opportunity to fire it up.
Regards,
Nigel
- 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/
| |