Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 27 Sep 2006
23:08:32 +0100 (BST)):
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
My point is that we need a notion of taking CPUs offline and online
with scheudler hooks, instead of exporting a simple x86-specific
bitmask. Right now we don't notify the schedulers when a CPU goes
offline so that they can try to do sensible things with pinned and
bound threads, etc. Instead, they just have to "notice" which is
rediculously lame.
It's pretty clear that if we're going to take the hypervisor + dynamic
reconfiguration thing seriously, we need a structured notion of adding
and removing CPUs from the active CPU pool, including things like event
handlers so that subsystems can shut down operations on the CPU. For
example, UMA needs a chance to drain per-CPU caches of various zones,
services that have pinned threads on the CPU will need to decide how to
deal with that, etc. It's work I'd very much like to see happen, and
until it's done we basically need to make sure that CPUs either exist
from boot and never cease existing, or don't exist at boot and are
never used.
Anyone out there who can write up a nice entry for the ideas list for
this? Some TODO items in it would be nice.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Sometimes it happens. People just explode. Natural causes.
-- Repo Man
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
