On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:04:31 -0500
Nathan Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > Sounds like we are getting nowhere. The sysctl knob might
> > have to be the answer.
>
> I don't like having the kernel forcibly kill or stop tasks for this
> case, regardless of whether the behavior is configurable. What I
> originally meant to suggest was a sysctl knob which will control
> whether the offline will fail in this situation.
Okay, stop_on_cpu_lost patcfh is not good anyway.
Andrew, could you drop stop_on_cpu_lost patch ?
>From this discussion, it seems there is a direction.
I'll update my avoid_cpu_removal_if_busy patch and add sysctl for it.
> But I'm still more inclined to leave the kernel's handling of this as it
> stands, since this is policy that can be implemented in userspace.
>
A program to walk through all tasks and check thier allowd_cpus ?
> We need to preserve the current behavior as the default, in any case.
>
I agree here.
-Kame
-
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]
