Hi! > > > How well tested is this? From my reading, this will cause > > > enable_nonboot_cpus() to panic. Is that intended? > > > > I wanted to give you an update on results of cpu testing I've done on > > recent kernels and several architectures. Since -rc1 is out, I wanted > > to give added visibility to the few issues that remain. > > > > The full results are available here: > > > > http://crucible.osdl.org/runs/hotplug_report.html > > > > This is actually a report for cpu hotplug tests generated hourly, > > however we run it against all of the kernel -git snapshots posted to > > kernel.org. Whereever you see a blank square, it indicates the kernel > > either failed to build or boot. So... patch-2.6.18-git4 failed to boot on all architectures? I'm seeing very little green fields there... actually I only see two green fields in whole table. (And it would be nice to call ia64 "ia64", not "ita64" :-) > Can you describe the nature of the cpu-hotplug tests you're running? I'd > be fairly staggered if the kernel was able to survive a full-on cpu-hotplug > stress test for more than one second, frankly. There's a lot of code in > there which is non-hotplug-aware. Running a non-preemptible kernel would > make things appear more stable, perhaps. > > iirc Pavel did some testing a month or two ago and was seeing userspace > misbehaviour? Pavel did some testing (like two threads trying to plug/unplug cpus at the same time), and seen machines dying real fast; but that was fixed, IIRC, and I did not really torture it after that. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
