[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C04E761.4020800@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 12:56:33 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] vhost: apply cpumask and cgroup to vhost workers
Hello,
On 06/01/2010 12:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Something that I wanted to figure out - what happens if the
> CPU mask limits us to a certain CPU that subsequently goes offline?
The thread gets unbound during the last steps of cpu offlining.
> Will e.g. flush block forever or until that CPU comes back?
> Also, does singlethreaded workqueue behave in the same way?
So, things will proceed as usual although the thread will lose its
affinity. Singlethread wqs don't bind their workers (and they
shouldn't! :-). MT ones explicitly manage workers according to cpu
up/down events.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists