linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>,
	Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] cpu: pseries: Cpu offline states framework
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:22:35 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1253121755.7180.8.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090916170314.GH15538@dirshya.in.ibm.com>

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 22:33 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> [2009-09-16 18:35:16]:
> 
> > On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 21:54 +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> > 
> > > No, for this specific case, latency isn't an issue. The issue is -
> > > how do we cede unused vcpus to hypervisor for better energy management ?
> > > Yes, it can be done by a hypervisor manager telling the kernel to
> > > offline and make a bunch of vcpus "inactive". It does have to choose
> > > offline (release vcpu) vs. inactive (cede but guranteed if needed).
> > > The problem is that long ago we exported a lot of hotplug stuff to
> > > userspace through the sysfs interface and we cannot do something
> > > inside the kernel without keeping the sysfs stuff consistent.
> > > This seems like a sane way to do that without undoing all the
> > > virtual cpu hotplug infrastructure in different supporting archs.
> > 
> > I'm still not getting it..
> > 
> > Suppose we have some guest, it booted with 4 cpus.
> > 
> > We then offline 2 of them.
> > 
> > Apparently this LPAR binds guest cpus to physical cpus?
> > So we use a hypervisor interface to reclaim these 2 offlined cpus and
> > re-assign them to some other guest.
> > 
> > So far so good, right?
> > 
> > Now if you were to try and online the cpus in the guest, it'd fail
> > because the cpus aren't backed anymore, and the hot-plug simply
> > times-out and fails.
> > 
> > And we're still good, right?
> 
> The requirement differ here.  If we had offlined 2 vCPUs for the
> purpose of system reconfiguration, the expected behavior with offline
> interface will work right.  However the proposed cede interface is
> needed when we want them to temporarily go away but still come back
> when we do an online.  We want the online to always succeed since the
> backing physical resources are not relinquished.  The proposed
> interface facilitates offline without relinquishing the physical
> resources assigned to LPARs.

Then make that the platform default and leave the lpar management to
whatever pokes at the lpar?

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-16 17:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-15 12:06 [PATCH v3 0/3] cpu: pseries: Cpu offline states framework Gautham R Shenoy
2009-09-15 12:07 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] pSeries: cede latency specifier helper function Gautham R Shenoy
2009-09-15 14:45   ` Daniel Walker
2009-09-15 12:07 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] cpu: Offline state Framework Gautham R Shenoy
2009-09-30 17:31   ` Randy Dunlap
2009-09-15 12:07 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] cpu: Implement cpu-offline-state callbacks for pSeries Gautham R Shenoy
2009-09-15 12:11 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] cpu: pseries: Cpu offline states framework Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-15 13:21   ` Michael Ellerman
2009-09-15 14:58   ` Balbir Singh
2009-09-16  7:48     ` Heiko Carstens
2009-09-24  0:52       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-09-16 15:28   ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-09-16 15:32     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-16 16:24       ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-09-16 16:35         ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-16 17:03           ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-09-16 17:22             ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2009-09-16 20:17               ` Dipankar Sarma
2009-09-24  0:55         ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-09-24  0:51   ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-09-25 14:48     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-25 21:12       ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-09-28 13:53         ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-09-28 13:51       ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan
2009-09-26  9:55   ` Pavel Machek

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1253121755.7180.8.camel@laptop \
    --to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=arun@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=djwong@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).