* Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 04/19/2013 01:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >>> What you mention here should indeed already be handled by the
> >>> architecture
> >>> hotplug code (for e
On 04/19/2013 01:26 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>>> What you mention here should indeed already be handled by the architecture
>>> hotplug code (for example on x86 the boot CPU cannot be hot-removed).
>
* Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > What you mention here should indeed already be handled by the architecture
> > hotplug code (for example on x86 the boot CPU cannot be hot-removed).
>
> Supposedly, some new Intels (I think Ivybridge
> The get/put_online_cpus() doesn't help in this case, because if a
> hotplug operation is started _after_ this function returns, then
> your task will get force migrated - which makes the get/put_online_cpus()
> pointless. What we need to do is *disable* CPU hotplug altogether.
> We need not even
On 04/17/2013 03:33 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Robin Holt wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:07PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 04/16/2013 05:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:07PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > > On 04/16/2013 05:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> * Ro
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:53AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> What you mention here should indeed already be handled by the
> architecture hotplug code (for example on x86 the boot CPU cannot be
> hot-removed).
Supposedly, some new Intels (I think Ivybridge or so) can actually be
hot-removed.
--
* Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:07PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > On 04/16/2013 05:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Robin Holt wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu
* Robin Holt wrote:
> > reboot_cpu_id = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
> >
> > > Also, does this codepath prevent hotplug from going on in parallel?
> >
> > Not sure. I have not considered hotplug. I will look that over when I
> > am in the office.
>
> OK. I have been mulling
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:07PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 04/16/2013 05:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> * Robin Holt wrote:
> >>
> >>> We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu machine takes approx 16
> >>> minute
On 04/16/2013 05:36 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Robin Holt wrote:
>>
>>> We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu machine takes approx 16
>>> minutes of just stopping the cpus. The slowdown was tracked to commit
>>> f96972f.
>>
> > > +{
> > > + /* The boot cpu is always logical cpu 0 */
> > > + int reboot_cpu_id = 0;
> > > +
> > > + /* Make certain the cpu I'm about to reboot on is online */
> > > + if (!cpu_online(reboot_cpu_id))
> > > + reboot_cpu_id = smp_processor_id();
> >
> > Shouldn't we pick the first onl
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 01:32:56PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Robin Holt wrote:
>
> > We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu machine takes approx 16
> > minutes of just stopping the cpus. The slowdown was tracked to commit
> > f96972f.
> >
> > The current implementation does all th
* Robin Holt wrote:
> We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu machine takes approx 16
> minutes of just stopping the cpus. The slowdown was tracked to commit
> f96972f.
>
> The current implementation does all the work of hot removing the cpus
> before halting the system. We are switchin
We recently noticed that reboot of a 1024 cpu machine takes approx 16
minutes of just stopping the cpus. The slowdown was tracked to commit
f96972f.
The current implementation does all the work of hot removing the cpus
before halting the system. We are switching to just migrating to the
boot cpu
15 matches
Mail list logo
