Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:56:48 +0900
From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
To: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, vatsa@in.ibm.com,
       zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, nathanl@austin.ibm.com, jschopp@austin.ibm.com,
       ashok.raj@intel.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
       takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpu-hotplug: Can't offline the CPU with naughty realtime
 processes
Message-Id: <20070507195648.dafe57b2.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <87bqgxrlky.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <87bqgxrlky.wl%takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com>
Organization: Fujitsu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 843
Lines: 22

On Mon, 07 May 2007 19:10:05 +0900
Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:


> kstopmachine is created, bound to the CPU1, and woken up here, but
> this process can't start to run because reschedule doesn't occur on
> CPU1. Hence CPU0 also be able to run because it's waiting completion
> of CPU1's offline work.
> 
Is this Bug ? It seems the system works as designed... 

Hmm,  adding stop_machine_run_interruptible() and 
using wait_for_completion_interruptible() instead of wait_for_completion()
is O.K. ? Then we can stop cpu hot-unplug by signal. Is this okay for you ?

-Kame

-
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/