On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:59:49 -0800
Paul Jackson <pj@engr.sgi.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> >
> > If these are processes that are bound to the CPU to be shut down,
> > wouldn't it make sense to fail the CPU shut down operation ? If you
> > are giving enough control to the user to make CPU affinity decisions,
> > they better know how to cleanup before shutting down a CPU.
>
> I can imagine some users (applications) wanting to insist on
> staying on a particular CPU (Pike's Peak or Bust), and some
> content to be migrated automatically, and some wanting to
> receive and act on requests to migrate.
>
> One of these policies might be default, with others as options.
>
> Some CPU shut down operations _can't_ fail ... if they are motivated
> say by hardware about to fail.
Exactly. If I run the RC5 challenge, one per cpu (using a mythical
oncpu(1) program, say), I'd be very upset if my whole machine dies because
it don't take down a faulty CPU!
I think SIGPWR is appropriate here. If that doesn't work, then SIGKILL.
Of course, ksoftirqd is a special case, etc.
Rusty.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 21:00:35 EST