[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253778667.7695.130.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:51:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpu: pseries: Offline state framework.
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 10:48 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 07:33 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > I'm still thinking this is a bad idea.
> >
> > The OS should only know about online/offline.
> >
> > Use the hypervisor interface to deal with the cpu once its offline.
> >
> > That is, I think this interface you propose is a layering violation.
> >
> I don't quite follow your logic here. This is useful for more than just
> hypervisors. For example, take the HV out of the picture for a moment
> and imagine that the HW has the ability to offline CPU in various power
> levels, with varying latencies to bring them back.
cpu-hotplug is an utter slow path, anybody saying latency and hotplug in
the same sentence doesn't seem to grasp either or both concepts.
--
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