On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I don't quite follow your logic here. This is useful for more than just > > hypervisors. For example, take the HV out of the picture for a moment > > and imagine that the HW has the ability to offline CPU in various power > > levels, with varying latencies to bring them back. > > cpu-hotplug is an utter slow path, anybody saying latency and hotplug in > the same sentence doesn't seem to grasp either or both concepts.
Let's forget about latency then. Let's imagine I want to set a CPU offline to save power, vs. setting it offline -and- opening the back door of the machine to actually physically replace it :-) In any case, I don't see the added feature as being problematic, and not such a "layering violation" as you seem to imply it is. It's a convenient way to atomically take the CPU out -and- convey some information about the "intent" to the hypervisor, and I really fail to see why you have so strong objections about it. Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
