On 06/26/2013 10:59 PM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:33:43AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> I thought the whole deal with this patchset was to remove stop_machine >> from CPU hotplug. Why halt all CPUs just to remove one? stomp_machine() >> is extremely intrusive for the entire system, where as one CPU making >> sure all CPUs schedule isn't very intrusive at all. >> >> I didn't think the idea of this patch set was to make CPU hotplug >> faster, just less intrusive to the system. > > Yeap, removal of stop_machine is a great improvement in itself. Absolutely. To make hotplug less intrusive on the system. > ISTR > mentions of hot-unplug latency but I could be mistaken. Srivatsa, can > you please chime in on that? > Yes, we were discussing hot-unplug latency for use-cases such as suspend/resume. We didn't want to make those operations slower in the process of removing stop_machine() from hotplug. Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- 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
