On Sun, 2007-08-26 at 05:46 +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 01:47:40PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Before this patch, process leaves its ->cpuset and migrates to some "random" > > any_online_cpu(). With this patch it stays within ->cpuset and migrates to > > CPU 3. > > The decision to bind a task to a specific cpu, was taken by the userspace > for a reason, which is _unknown_ to the kernel. > So logically, shouldn't the userspace decide what should be > the fate of those exclusive-affined tasks, whose cpu is about to go > offline? After all, the reason to offline the cpu is, again, unknown to > the kernel.
Userspace is not monolithic. If you refuse to take a CPU offline because a task is affine, then any user can prevent a CPU from going offline. You could, perhaps, introduce a "gentle" offline which fails if process affinity can no longer be met. Rusty. - 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/