Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hello, Christoph. >> >> Christoph Lameter wrote: > >>> I looked at allocating for online cpus only a couple of years >>> back but at that per cpu state was kept for offlined cpus in per >>> cpu areas. There are numerous assumptions in per cpu handling >>> all over the kernel that a percpu area is always available. >> The plan is to allocate and keep percpu areas for cpus which have >> ever been up. There'll be no taking down of percpu areas. >> Conversion from possible to has_ever_been_up should be much easier >> than possible -> online. State keeping will work fine too. > > That sounds like a very sane plan. > > Ingo Yes, percpu area dynamic *de*-allocation would almost certainly be a nightmare. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
