Quoting Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 27 Sep 2006
23:08:32 +0100 (BST)):
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, John Baldwin wrote:
>> My point is that we need a notion of taking CPUs offline and online
>> with scheudler hooks, instead of exporting a simple x86-specific
>> bitmask. Right now we don't notify the schedulers when a CPU goes
>> offline so that they can try to do sensible things with pinned and
>> bound threads, etc. Instead, they just have to "notice" which is
>> rediculously lame.
> It's pretty clear that if we're going to take the hypervisor + dynamic
> reconfiguration thing seriously, we need a structured notion of adding
> and removing CPUs from the active CPU pool, including things like event
> handlers so that subsystems can shut down operations on the CPU. For
> example, UMA needs a chance to drain per-CPU caches of various zones,
> services that have pinned threads on the CPU will need to decide how to
> deal with that, etc. It's work I'd very much like to see happen, and
> until it's done we basically need to make sure that CPUs either exist
> from boot and never cease existing, or don't exist at boot and are
> never used.
Anyone out there who can write up a nice entry for the ideas list for
this? Some TODO items in it would be nice.
Sometimes it happens. People just explode. Natural causes.
-- Repo Man
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137