lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug rework
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:57:32AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:20 -0700, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:55:04PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:01:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > > Thing is, if its really too much for some people, they can orchestrate
> > > > it such that its not. Just move everybody in a cpuset, clear the to be
> > > > offlined cpu from the cpuset's mask -- this will migrate everybody away.
> > > > Then hotplug will find an empty runqueue and its fast, no?
> > >
> > > I like this solution better.
> >
> > As long as we have some way to handle kthreads that are algorithmically
> > tied to a given CPU. There are coding conventions to handle this, for
> > example, do everything with preemption disabled and just after each
> > preempt_disable() verify that you are in fact running on the correct
> > CPU, but it is easy to imagine improvements.
>
> I don't think we should move per-cpu kthreads at all. Let's stop trying
> to save a few bytes of memory, and just leave them frozen. They'll run
> again if/when the CPU returns.

OK, that would work for me. So, how do I go about freezing RCU's
per-CPU kthreads?

Thanx, Paul



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-24 01:27    [W:0.143 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site