Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752717AbZIXIkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:40:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752318AbZIXIkr (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:40:47 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:50034 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752155AbZIXIkq (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 04:40:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] cpu: pseries: Offline state framework. From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Gautham R Shenoy , Joel Schopp , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Dipankar Sarma , Balbir Singh , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Darrick J. Wong" In-Reply-To: <1253778667.7695.130.camel@twins> References: <20090828095741.10641.32053.stgit@sofia.in.ibm.com> <1251869611.7547.38.camel@twins> <1253753307.7103.356.camel@pasglop> <1253778667.7695.130.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:38:27 +1000 Message-Id: <1253781508.7103.437.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1251 Lines: 27 On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:51 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > I don't quite follow your logic here. This is useful for more than just > > hypervisors. For example, take the HV out of the picture for a moment > > and imagine that the HW has the ability to offline CPU in various power > > levels, with varying latencies to bring them back. > > cpu-hotplug is an utter slow path, anybody saying latency and hotplug in > the same sentence doesn't seem to grasp either or both concepts. Let's forget about latency then. Let's imagine I want to set a CPU offline to save power, vs. setting it offline -and- opening the back door of the machine to actually physically replace it :-) In any case, I don't see the added feature as being problematic, and not such a "layering violation" as you seem to imply it is. It's a convenient way to atomically take the CPU out -and- convey some information about the "intent" to the hypervisor, and I really fail to see why you have so strong objections about it. Ben. -- 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/