On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 03:16:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 07:10:28AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > You know, this situation is giving me a bad case of nostalgia for the
> > old Sequent Symmetry and NUMA-Q hardware. On those platforms, the
> > outgoing CPU could turn itself off, and thus didn't need to tell some
> > other CPU when it was ready to be turned off. Seems to me that this
> > self-turn-off capability would be a great feature for future systems!
>
> Unfortunately, some briliant people decided that secure firmware on
> their platforms (which is sometimes needed to turn the secondary CPUs
> off) can only be called by CPU0...
>
> Other people decide that they can power down the secondary CPU when it
> hits a WFI (wait for interrupt) instruction after arming that state
> change, which is far saner - but we still need to know on the requesting
> CPU when the dying CPU has completed the time-expensive parts of the
> offlining process.
I suppose that you could grant the outgoing CPU the ability to arm
that state, but easy for me to say...
Anyway, still looks like a pure polling loop is required, with short
timed waits running on the surviving CPU.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
