Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:37:43 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] stop on cpu lost |
| |
Hi!
> > > > Hm.. > > > > Then, there is several ways to manage this sitation. > > > > > > > > 1. migrate all even if it's not allowed by users > > > > That's what I'd prefer... as swsusp uses cpu hotplug. All the other > > options are bad... admin will probably not realize suspend involves > > cpu unplugs.. > > You probably first suspend a process? If a process was suspended by > swsusp then we can just ignore the restriction because it will be > returned later.
Yes, I stop processes, first.
> The admin wants the system to behave in a consistent way. If he suddenly > finds a process running on a cpu that was forbidden then that is weird > and surprising to say the least and may go undetected for a long time. > If the process gets killed when he disables the cpu then he will have to > fix up his cpu restrictions.
Would not keeping current behaviour, with adding _loud_ printk, be enough? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - 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/
| |