KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 17:29:32 +1000
Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
As SIGSTOP/KILL patch I posted, the apps shouldn't do unexpected
work, I think.
I don't quite understand you here... the kernel doesn't need to enforce
anything but a dumb fallback policy where userspace is otherwise capable
of handling it themselves.
If all things about apps are properly maintained/managed, it is reconfigured
by the user/system admin *before* cpu hotremove.
The case "the kernel have to move the task to other cpu which user doesn't want"
means the application is already broken.
So, I think "stop mis-configurated process" can be one way for handling such apps.
For example)
After exchanging broken cpu, the application can continue its work with the
same # of cpus.
OK I can see what you're trying to achieve, but I don't know that it is
worthwhile. Userspace is doing something wrong, and it isn't normally the
kernel's job to detect that.
When something like this comes up, sticking to the simplest semantics is
often best.
That said, it isn't a great deal of code to maintain, and not "incorrect"
as such. So if you convince Ingo to pick it up, I wouldn't complain.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
