[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1253753501.7103.358.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:51:41 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.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:
> I still think its a layering violation... its the hypervisor manager
> that should be bothered in what state an off-lined cpu is in.
>
That's not how our hypervisor works.
If you ask through the management interface, to remove a CPU from a
partition, the HV will communicate with a daemon inside the partition
that will then unplug the CPU via the right call.
I don't really understand your objections to be honest. And I fail to
see why it would be a layering violation to have the ability for the OS
to indicate in what state it wishes to relinguish a CPU to the
hypervisor, which more or less defines what is the expected latency for
getting it back later on.
Ben.
--
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