Hi, On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:25:53PM +0800, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > In this patch-series, we propose to extend the CPU-Hotplug infrastructure > and allow the system administrator to choose the desired state the CPU should > go to when it is offlined. We think this approach addresses the concerns about > determinism as well as transparency, since CPU-Hotplug already provides > notification mechanism which the userspace can listen to for any change > in the configuration and correspondingly readjust any previously set > cpu-affinities. Peter dislikes any approach (including cpuhotplug) which breaks userspace policy, even userspace can get a notification.
> Also, approaches such as [1] can make use of this > extended infrastructure instead of putting the CPU to an arbitrary C-state > when it is offlined, thereby providing the system administrator a rope to hang > himself with should he feel the need to do so. I didn't see the reason why administrator needs to know which state offline cpu should stay. Don't know about powerpc side, but in x86 side, it appears deepest C-state is already preferred. Thanks, Shaohua _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
