On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:25:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> 
> * Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:19:13PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 13:09 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>>>> Even if the system has multiple CPUs, and even if just a single CPU is
> >>>>> fully utilized by an RT task, without the rt-limit the system will still
> >>>>> lock up in practice due to various other factors: workqueues and tasks
> >>>>> being 'stuck' on CPUs that host an RT hog.
> >>>> The load balancer will not notice that a particular CPU is busy
> >>>> with real time tasks?
> >>> Not currently, working on that though.
> >>
> >> I wonder if it would make sense to break affinities in extreme case?
> >> With that even the workqueues would work again.
> >
> > Please lets not break affinity :).
> 
> correct, breaking affinity is a rather stupid idea.

Ok let's remove cpu hotunplug then.  Probably nobody uses it anyways @)

Seriously cpu affinity on all non BP CPU is currently broken on every
suspend to RAM, doing it in a few more cases when it makes the system
more robust is unlikely to hurt anybody.

-Andi

-- 
ak@linux.intel.com

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/