[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070406172714.GA6131@localdomain>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:27:14 -0500
From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ibm.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vatsa@...ibm.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, mingo@...e.hu,
dipankar@...ibm.com, dino@...ibm.com,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Use process freezer for cpu-hotplug
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> This patch implements process_freezer based cpu-hotplug
> core.
> The sailent features are:
> o No more (un)lock_cpu_hotplug.
> o No more CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE. Hence no per-subsystem
> hotcpu mutexes.
> o Calls freeze_process/thaw_processes at the beginning/end of
> the hotplug operation.
...
> @@ -133,7 +111,11 @@ static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE, hcpu);
> + if (freeze_processes(FE_HOTPLUG_CPU)) {
> + thaw_processes(FE_HOTPLUG_CPU);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
If I'm understanding correctly, this will cause
# echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online
to sometimes fail, and userspace is expected to try again? This will
break existing applications.
Perhaps drivers/base/cpu.c:store_online should retry as long as
cpu_up/down return -EBUSY. That would avoid a userspace-visible
interface change.
-
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