From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161174AbWFVSip (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:38:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161173AbWFVSio (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:38:44 -0400 Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:14469 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030337AbWFVSin (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:38:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:37:43 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , ntl@pobox.com, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ashok.raj@intel.com, ak@suse.de, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] stop on cpu lost Message-ID: <20060622183743.GA4248@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20060620125159.72b0de15.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060621225609.db34df34.akpm@osdl.org> <20060622150848.GL16029@localdomain> <20060622084513.4717835e.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20060623010550.0e26a46e.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> <20060622092422.256d6692.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20060622182231.GC4193@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060126 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > > > Hm.. > > > > Then, there is several ways to manage this sitation. > > > > > > > > 1. migrate all even if it's not allowed by users > > > > That's what I'd prefer... as swsusp uses cpu hotplug. All the other > > options are bad... admin will probably not realize suspend involves > > cpu unplugs.. > > You probably first suspend a process? If a process was suspended by > swsusp then we can just ignore the restriction because it will be > returned later. Yes, I stop processes, first. > The admin wants the system to behave in a consistent way. If he suddenly > finds a process running on a cpu that was forbidden then that is weird > and surprising to say the least and may go undetected for a long time. > If the process gets killed when he disables the cpu then he will have to > fix up his cpu restrictions. Would not keeping current behaviour, with adding _loud_ printk, be enough? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html