[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902012255550.8200@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 22:57:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
cc: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question on handling managed IRQs when hotplugging CPUs
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Thing is, if we have _managed_ CPU hotplug (ie if the hardware provides some
> means of quiescing the CPU before hotplug) then the whole thing is trivial;
> disable SQ and wait for all outstanding commands to complete.
> Then trivially all requests are completed and the issue is resolved.
> Even with todays infrastructure.
>
> And I'm not sure if we can handle surprise CPU hotplug at all, given all the
> possible race conditions.
> But then I might be wrong.
The kernel would completely fall apart when a CPU would vanish by surprise,
i.e. uncontrolled by the kernel. Then the SCSI driver exploding would be
the least of our problems.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists