[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626213458.GC4536@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:34:58 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, walken@...gle.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sbw@....edu,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to
prevent CPU offline
Hey,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:58:48PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Yes, we were discussing hot-unplug latency for use-cases such as
> suspend/resume. We didn't want to make those operations slower in the
> process of removing stop_machine() from hotplug.
Can you please explain why tho? How much would it help in terms of
power-saving? Or are there other issues in taking longer to shut down
cpus?
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