[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FA7E996.9010302@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 23:26:14 +0800
From: Jiang Liu <liuj97@...il.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...nel.org, pjt@...gle.com, paul@...lmenage.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl, nacc@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com, rob@...dley.net, tj@...nel.org,
mschmidt@...hat.com, berrange@...hat.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix issues with cpusets
handling upon CPU hotplug
On 05/06/2012 01:15 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> I, personally, think we should just kill of tasks in cpuset-constrained
>> environments that are nonsensical (no memory, no cpus, etc.).
>
>
> Even I think just killing the tasks or maybe even preventing such destructive
> hotplug (last cpu in a cpuset going offline) would have been way more
> easier to handle and also logical.. and userspace would have been more
> cautious while dealing with cpusets, from the beginning....
On one another OS, there's a "force" flag for cpu_down(). If cpu_down() is
called with the "force" flag as false, the request will be rejected if
any cpuset becomes empty; otherwise it will try to assign other CPUs to
the empty cpusets.
So the administrator could choose different behaviors.
--
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