Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261530AbVDEB52 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:57:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261535AbVDEB52 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:57:28 -0400 Received: from fmr18.intel.com ([134.134.136.17]:35519 "EHLO orsfmr003.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261530AbVDEB5X (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:57:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [RFC 5/6]clean cpu state after hotremove CPU From: Li Shaohua To: Nathan Lynch Cc: lkml , ACPI-DEV , Zwane Mwaikambo , Len Brown , Pavel Machek In-Reply-To: <20050404153345.GC3611@otto> References: <1112580367.4194.344.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20050404052844.GB3611@otto> <1112593338.4194.362.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20050404153345.GC3611@otto> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1112666106.17861.62.camel@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 09:55:06 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1705 Lines: 46 Hi, On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:33, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > I'd say fix the smpboot code so that it doesn't create new idle tasks > except during boot. I'd like the the CPU hotremove case just likes the case that CPU isn't boot. A non-boot CPU hasn't a idle thread. But you may think it's not worthy doing. Anyway, I will keep the idle thread in a updated patch like what you said. > > > We've been > > > doing cpu removal on ppc64 logical partitions for a while and never > > > needed to do anything like this. > > Did it remove idle thread? or dead cpu is in a busy loop of idle? > > Neither. The cpu is definitely offline, but there is no reason to > free the idle thread. > > > > > > Maybe idle_task_exit would suffice? > > idle_task_exit seems just drop mm. We need destroy the idle task for > > physical CPU hotplug, right? > > No. > > > > > > > I don't understand the need for this, either. The existing cpu > > > hotplug notifier in the scheduler takes care of initializing the sched > > > domains and groups appropriately for online/offline events; why do you > > > need to touch the runqueue structures? > > If a CPU is physically hotremoved from the system, shouldn't we clean > > its runqueue? > > No. It should make zero difference to the scheduler whether the "play > dead" cpu hotplug or "physical" hotplug is being used. Keeping some fields like 'cpu_load' are meanless for a hotadded CPU to me. Just ignore them? Thanks, Shaohua - 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/