Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:25:56 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 local_apic.c Message-ID: <451C05A4.3010605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060927230635.D73166@fledge.watson.org> References: <200609261608.k8QG8TYB044266@repoman.freebsd.org> <200609271117.25831.jhb@freebsd.org> <451A9E1E.30601@samsco.org> <200609271338.22284.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060927230635.D73166@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > 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. I can't agree more. The whole hlt_cpus_mask change leaves taste of the very bad hack. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?451C05A4.3010605>