[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FCE466A.3050202@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:18:26 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, yong.zhang0@...il.com,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
rjw@...k.pl, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Keir Fraser <keir@....org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 05/27] xen, cpu hotplug: Don't call cpu_bringup()
in xen_play_dead()
On 06/05/2012 11:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> Ok.. So, I would love to hear a confirmation about whether this patch (which
>> removes cpu_bringup() in xen_play_dead()) will break things or it is good as is.
>>
>> If its not correct, then we can probably make __cpu_post_online() return an int,
>> with the meaning:
>>
>> 0 => success, go ahead and call cpu_idle()
>> non-zero => stop here, thanks for your services so far.. now leave the rest to me.
>>
>> So all other archs will return 0, Xen will return non-zero, and it will handle
>> when to call cpu_idle() and when not to do so.
>>
>> Might sound a bit ugly, but I don't see much other option. Suggestions are
>> appreciated!
>
> Yes, it's butt ugly.
>
> You are tripping over the main misconception of the current hotplug
> code: It's asymetric.
>
> So people added warts and workarounds like the xen one. What you are
> proposing is another wart and workaround.
>
> The real way to avoid it, is to have the symetric state machine in
> place first and then convert everything to that instead of introducing
> an intermediate state which resembles the existing state.
>
> One of the main things we need to do to make it symetric is to kill
> the play_dead() thing in the idle loop and make idle a function which
> returns on cpu_should_die().
>
> Give me a day or two and I get you a working version of that. (Up is
> functional, just down refuses to play along)
>
Oh great! So, then I'll wait for your patches and then adapt this patchset
to your model then. Let me know if I can help out with something..
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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