[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F19301A16@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 19:54:19 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan Dan De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or
nmi
> But given that you care about how fast a cpu can come up again, this
> seems to be exactly what you want. You want to adapt to load fast, so
> why bother going through userspace and wrecking bits in between?
There are multiple needs here - that appear to have some significant
overlap (re-routing interrupts, stopping scheduling).
My need is for RAS reasons to take a cpu offline - and since
it is broken, I'm not going to bring it back again (at least not anytime
soon - perhaps a service engineer will drive by in a few hours, pull out
the broken cpu, put in a new one, and then bring that online ... but
saving a few milli-seconds in this use case it pointless).
Other people want to do this for power saving. They probably do care
how fast the processor can be brought back.
-Tony
--
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