linux-kernel - Re: CPU Hotplug rework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120324002347.GD2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:23:47 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CPU Hotplug rework

On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 09:57:32AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:49:20 -0700, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 02:55:04PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:01:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > > Thing is, if its really too much for some people, they can orchestrate
> > > > it such that its not. Just move everybody in a cpuset, clear the to be
> > > > offlined cpu from the cpuset's mask -- this will migrate everybody away.
> > > > Then hotplug will find an empty runqueue and its fast, no?
> > > 
> > > I like this solution better.
> > 
> > As long as we have some way to handle kthreads that are algorithmically
> > tied to a given CPU.  There are coding conventions to handle this, for
> > example, do everything with preemption disabled and just after each
> > preempt_disable() verify that you are in fact running on the correct
> > CPU, but it is easy to imagine improvements.
> 
> I don't think we should move per-cpu kthreads at all.  Let's stop trying
> to save a few bytes of memory, and just leave them frozen.  They'll run
> again if/when the CPU returns.

OK, that would work for me.  So, how do I go about freezing RCU's
per-CPU kthreads?

							Thanx, Paul

--
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/