On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 02:19:39PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > > just a bunch of handwaving so far, sorry.
> >
> > Hand waving? Dont think that was intensional though.. i think we are trying
> > to address a real problem, if there is a reasonable alternate already
> > that we are not aware of, no problemo...
>
> If the motivation for these patches is to minimize disruption of the
> workload when offlining a group of cpus, then I think the reasonable
> alternative is for the admin (or a script) to migrate sensitive
> tasks and interrupts to cpus that are not going to be offlined --
> before offlining any cpus.
>
> On the other hand, I'm getting the feeling that the problem you're
> really trying to address is that offlining lots of cpus takes a long
Think i relied to the other thread... we can invent lots of goodies to keep
process and interrupt bouncing... but nothing is going to stop the
kstopmachine() hammer for each logical cpu offline in any architecture:-(
-
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]
