Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling relatedto cpusets

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 02/14/2012 02:09 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:17:53PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/10/2012 10:23 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:52:07PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:11 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding of the code is that when a CPU is taken 
>>>>>> offline, it is removed from all the cpusets and then the 
>>>>>> scan_for_empty_cpusets() function is run to move tasks from 
>>>>>> empty cpusets to their parent cpusets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that done that way? offlining a CPU should be an 
>>>>> invariant as far as cpusets are concerned.
>>>>
>>>> Can't, tasks need to run someplace. There's two choices, add a still
>>>> online cpu to the now empty cpuset or move the tasks to a parent that
>>>> still has online cpus.
>>>>
>>>> Both are destructive.
>>>
>>> OK, I will ask the stupid question...  Hey, somebody has to!  ;-)
>>>
>>> Would it make sense for offlining the last CPU in a cpuset to be
>>> destructive, but to allow offlining of a non-last CPU to be reversible?
>>>
>>> For example, assume that cpuset A has CPUs 0 and 1, and cpuset B has
>>> 1, 2, and 3.  Then offlining any single CPU and then onlining it would
>>> restore the cpusets to their original state.  Offlining both CPUs 0 and 1
>>> would be destructive to cpuset A, so that onlining those two CPUs would
>>> leave any tasks in cpuset A in some ancestor of cpuset A, and would
>>> leave cpuset A with no assigned CPUs.  However, that same operation
>>> (offlining both CPUs 0 and 1, then onlining them) would restore cpuset
>>> B to its original state, covering CPUs 1, 2, and 3.
>>
>> But how would this scheme help us? During suspend, all non-boot CPUs are
>> taken offline. Which means, it would be destructive to any cpuset that
>> didn't originally contain CPU0 (even when using the above scheme). So, upon
>> resume, it is still not the same as how it was before suspend.
> 
> Yep, it would only help for incremental cases.  Or if all cpusets had
> CPU 0 in them.  So preserving cpusets across suspend will require a
> bigger hammer.
> 


Hehe ;-)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/