[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070406174704.GC6131@localdomain>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:47:04 -0500
From: Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, 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>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
dino@...ibm.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Use process freezer for cpu-hotplug
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com> wrote:
>
> > > - 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.
>
> yeah. I'd even suggest a freeze_processes_nofail() API instead, that
> does this internally, without burdening the callsites. (and once the
> freezer becomes complete then freeze_processes_nofail() ==
> freeze_processes())
Yeah, I just realized that an implementation of my proposal would busy
loop in the kernel forever if a silly admin tried to offline the last
cpu (we're already using -EBUSY for that case), so
freeze_processes_nofail is a better idea :-)
-
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