On 02/09/2019 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.09.2019 12:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 30/08/2019 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> When disabling SMT at runtime, secondary threads should no longer be
>>> candidates for bringing back up in response to _PUD ACPI events. Purge
>>> them from the
On 02.09.2019 12:37, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 30/08/2019 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> When disabling SMT at runtime, secondary threads should no longer be
>> candidates for bringing back up in response to _PUD ACPI events. Purge
>> them from the tracking array.
>
> I think I agree in principle,
On 30/08/2019 14:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> When disabling SMT at runtime, secondary threads should no longer be
> candidates for bringing back up in response to _PUD ACPI events. Purge
> them from the tracking array.
I think I agree in principle, but what are _PUD events? I can't find
any
When disabling SMT at runtime, secondary threads should no longer be
candidates for bringing back up in response to _PUD ACPI events. Purge
them from the tracking array.
Doing so involves adding locking to guard accounting data in the core
parking code. While adding the declaration for the lock,
