[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpo=_5RUZGQKaS2-oLqOxF2BspD0TA8PE1jbsF=CGB8umLA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:34:42 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linaro Networking <linaro-networking@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [QUERY]: Is using CPU hotplug right for isolating CPUs?
On 15 January 2014 17:04, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:17:26PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 15 January 2014 16:08, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > Nah, its just ugly and we should fix it. You need to be careful to not
>> > place tasks in a cpuset you're going to unplug though, that'll give
>> > funny results.
>>
>> Okay. So how do you suggest to get rid of cases like a work queued
>> on CPU1 initially and because it gets queued again from its work handler,
>> it stays on the same CPU forever.
>
> We should have a cpuset.quiesce control or something that moves all
> timers out.
What should we do here if we have a valid base->running_timer for the
cpu requesting the quiesce ?
--
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