[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253020911.16213.24.camel@concordia>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:21:51 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] cpu: pseries: Cpu offline states framework
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:11 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 17:36 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > This patchset contains the offline state driver implemented for
> > pSeries. For pSeries, we define three available_hotplug_states. They are:
> >
> > online: The processor is online.
> >
> > offline: This is the the default behaviour when the cpu is offlined
> > even in the absense of this driver. The CPU would call make an
> > rtas_stop_self() call and hand over the CPU back to the resource pool,
> > thereby effectively deallocating that vCPU from the LPAR.
> > NOTE: This would result in a configuration change to the LPAR
> > which is visible to the outside world.
> >
> > inactive: This cedes the vCPU to the hypervisor with a cede latency
> > specifier value 2.
> > NOTE: This option does not result in a configuration change
> > and the vCPU would be still entitled to the LPAR to which it earlier
> > belong to.
> >
> > Any feedback on the patchset will be immensely valuable.
>
> I still think its a layering violation... its the hypervisor manager
> that should be bothered in what state an off-lined cpu is in.
Yeah it probably is a layering violation, but when has that stopped us
before :)
Is it anticipated that this will be useful on platforms other than
pseries?
cheers
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists