Date:	Thu, 8 Dec 2011 05:43:03 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Van De Ven, Arjan" <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
	"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Herrmann3, Andreas" <Andreas.Herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/7] x86: BSP or CPU0 online/offline


* Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:

> > The question is, how realistically does this report true CPU 
> > troubles, statistically? The on-die cache might have the 
> > highest transistor count, but it's not under nearly the same 
> > thermal stress as functional units.
> >
> > If 90% of all hard CPU failures can be predicted that way 
> > then it's probably useful. If it's only 20%, then not so 
> > much.
> 
> Intel doesn't release error rates - so I can't help with data 
> here.

Well, precise data won't be needed - but we need *something* 
indicative to justify the feature - faith alone won't be enough.

Is there any third party research on this? I remember that 
Google released hard drive failure stats a few years ago, maybe 
there's some approximate data about CPU "soft" failure rates. 
Even anecdotal data and speculation/estimation would be a start 
- it could be contradicted later on by more precise data, once 
people start using the "generic CPU hot-unplug" feature. (which 
this feature should really be named, instead of the 'BSP unplug' 
name.)

> > Also, it's still all theoretical until there's systems out 
> > there where the CPU socket is physically hotpluggable. If 
> > there's such plans in the works then sure, theory becomes 
> > reality and then it's all useful - and then we can do these 
> > patches (and more).
> 
> No - physical removal of the cpu is not a requirement for this 
> to be useful. [...]

Indeed, you are right, i stand corrected there.

Okay, i'm convinced, i guess we can do this.

> [...]
>
> Physical removal of the cpu is a problem for Linux since 
> Nehalem (when memory controller moved on-die). Take away the 
> cpu, and you lose access to the memory connected to that 
> socket - and we don't have general solutions for memory 
> removal.

It's possible technically but not the easiest of features - also 
i suspect Linus would object to the naive breaking of the 
semi-linear kernel mapping we do today ;-)

But if someone implements that in a sane way, using at least 2MB 
granular mappings [or maybe ORDER_MAX granular mappings], which 
keeps 2MB TLBs, and uses a quick hash table for __pa() and 
__va(), i would definitely take a look at how ugly it ends up 
being. Our hibernation code already gives us a generic way to 
quiescence all DMA activity on the system, so most of the 
building blocks are in place.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists