[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kern/39349: cpu affinity can make lwps non-schedulable
The following reply was made to PR kern/39349; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)
To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej%shagadelic.org@localhost>,
Subject: Re: kern/39349: cpu affinity can make lwps non-schedulable
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:38:22 -0700
On Jan 4, 5:14am, Jason Thorpe wrote:
} On Aug 14, 2008, at 2:00 AM, yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost wrote:
} >> Number: 39349
} >> Category: kern
} >> Synopsis: cpu affinity can make lwps non-schedulable
} >> State: open
} >> Description:
} > try:
} > # cpuctl offline 0
} > # cpuctl identify 0
} > "cpuctl identify" binds itself to cpu0, which is offline.
} > thus it will never be scheduled. if it has a lock (eg. p->p_lock),
} > the entire system will hang soon.
} Probably need to prevent binding to CPUs that have been taking
} offline. But what to do about CPUs that already have bound threads
This looks like the obvious answer to me.
} (which is all of them, of course). Perhaps we need to make note when
} an LWP has taken a lock?
I would like to see support for cpu hot swapping eventually. This
means that when a CPU is taken offline all bound threads and interrupts
MUST be migrated.
}-- End of excerpt from Jason Thorpe
Main Index |
Thread Index |