On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:55:06AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > 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
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand why this is needed at all. It looks like a fair
> > > amount of code from do_exit is being duplicated here.
> > Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
> > code. I'd like to remove the
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:55:06AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
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
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
I don't understand why this is needed at all. It looks like a fair
amount of code from do_exit is being duplicated here.
Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
code. I'd like to remove the idle thread,
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
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 08:46, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Hi Nigel!
>
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > > > Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
> > > > code. I'd like to
Hi Nigel!
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > > Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
> > > code. I'd like to remove the idle thread, since the smpboot code will
> > > create a
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:46:20PM -0700, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>
>Hi Nigel!
>
>On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> > > Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean
>
>
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
> > code. I'd like to remove the idle thread, since the smpboot code will
> > create a new idle thread.
>
> I'd say fix the smpboot code so that it doesn't create new
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:42:18PM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:28, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:07:02AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> > > Clean up all CPU states including its runqueue and idle thread,
> > > so we can use boot time code without any
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:42:18PM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:28, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:07:02AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
Clean up all CPU states including its runqueue and idle thread,
so we can use boot time code without any changes.
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
code. I'd like to remove the idle thread, since the smpboot code will
create a new idle thread.
I'd say fix the smpboot code so that it doesn't create new idle tasks
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:46:20PM -0700, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Hi Nigel!
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean
No, that
Hi Nigel!
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
code. I'd like to remove the idle thread, since the smpboot code will
create a new idle
Hi.
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 08:46, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Hi Nigel!
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 08:14:25AM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 01:33, Nathan Lynch wrote:
Yes, exactly. Someone who understand do_exit please help clean up the
code. I'd like to remove the
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
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:28, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:07:02AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
> > Clean up all CPU states including its runqueue and idle thread,
> > so we can use boot time code without any changes.
> > Note this makes /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online
Hi,
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 13:28, Nathan Lynch wrote:
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:07:02AM +0800, Li Shaohua wrote:
Clean up all CPU states including its runqueue and idle thread,
so we can use boot time code without any changes.
Note this makes /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpux/online unworkable.
18 matches
Mail list logo
