[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170807151020.h2u45tx64ccee64a@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 17:10:20 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Ofer Levi(SW)" <oferle@...lanox.com>
Cc: "rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"vatsa@...ibm.com" <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: hotplug support for arch/arc/plat-eznps platform
On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 01:41:38PM +0000, Ofer Levi(SW) wrote:
> > You've failed to explain why you think hotplug should be a performance
> > critical path.
> 1. hotplug bring up of 4K cpus takes 40 minutes. Way too much for any user.
> 2. plat-eznps is a network processor, where bring up time is sensitive.
But who is doing actual hotplug? Why would you ever unplug or plug a CPU
in a time critical situation?
> > I'm also not seeing how it would be different from boot; you'd be
> > looking at a similar cost for SMP bringup.
> bring up time of 4k cpus during kernel boot takes 4.5 minutes.
> The function in question is performed only when smp init was performed.
> If I understand correctly, whatever this function is doing is performed after all cpus
> were brought up during kernel boot.
Doesn't make sense. If you look at smp_init() boot brings up the CPUs
one at a time.
So how can boot be different than hot-pugging them?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists