[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF+s44SuXgZ4MD5z8m_q-m03j_p0u0RTGhH-VXF25iwQ=Jy-SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:39:40 +0800
From: Pingfan Liu <piliu@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>, 
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>, 
	Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] kernel/cpu: Mark nonboot cpus as inactive when shutting
 down nonboot cpus
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 8:13 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 29 2025 at 19:36, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 01:59:11PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> If you freeze stuff there is nothing to do. Hibernation works exactly
> >> that way without any magic hacks in a particular scheduling class, no?
> >>
> >
> > There is a nuance: DL bandwidth represents a commitment, not necessarily
> > the actual payload. Even a blocked DL task still occupies DL bandwidth.
> > The system's DL bandwidth remains unchanged as long as the CPUs stay
> > online, which is the case in hibernation.
>
> No. Hibernation brings the non-boot CPUs down in order to create the
> disk image.
>
Oh, I see. Since there are no DL tasks in the runqueue, no migration
occurs to activate the DL bandwidth. This approach, similar to PM, is
perfect for addressing this issue.
Thanks,
Pingfan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
