Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756720Ab2FFPYA (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:24:00 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:28163 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755181Ab2FFPX6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:23:58 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,351,1309762800"; d="scan'208";a="153746969" Message-ID: <4FCF760A.7030501@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:23:54 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com CC: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "Luck, Tony" , "Yu, Fenghua" , Rusty Russell , Ingo Molnar , H Peter Anvin , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "Mallick, Asit K" , linux-kernel , x86 , linux-pm , "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] x86/cpu hotplug: Wake up offline CPU via mwait or nmi References: <3E5A0FA7E9CA944F9D5414FEC6C7122007728081@ORSMSX105.amr.corp.intel.com> <1338913190.2749.10.camel@twins> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F19300965@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com> <1338918625.2749.29.camel@twins> <1338925756.2749.36.camel@twins> <1338931856.2749.57.camel@twins> <20120605221240.GW2388@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1338972223.2749.79.camel@twins> <20120606144127.GF19601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20120606144127.GF19601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1608 Lines: 31 On 6/6/2012 7:41 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 10:43:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 15:12 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> What I can't see is the isolated functional, aside from the above >>>> mentioned things, that's not strictly a per-cpu property, we can have a >>>> group that's isolated from the rest but not from each other. >>> >>> I suspect that Thomas is thinking that the CPU is so idle that it no >>> longer has to participate in TLB invalidation or RCU. (Thomas will >>> correct me if I am confused.) But Peter, is that the level of idle >>> you are thinking of? >> >> No, we're talking about isolated, so its very much running something. > > From what I can see, if the CPU is running something, this is Thomas's > "Isolated functional" state rather than his "Isolated idle" state. > The isolated-idle state should not need to participate in TLB invalidation > or RCU, so that the CPU never ever needs to wake up while in the > isolated-idle state. btw TLB invalidation I think is a red herring in this discussion (other than "global PTEs" kind of kernel pte changes); at least on x86 this is not happening for a long time; if a CPU is really idle (which means the CPU internally flushes the tlbs anyway), Linux also switches to the kernel PTE set so there's no need for a flush later on. -- 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/