Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpu: idle state framework for offline CPUs.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 01:14 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> * Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx> [2009-08-16 23:56:29]:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 01:30:21PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > It depends on the hypervisor implementation. On pseries (powerpc)
> > > > hypervisor, for example, they are different. By offlining a vcpu
> > > > (and in turn shutting a cpu), you will actually create a configuration
> > > > change in the VM that is visible to other systems management tools
> > > > which may not be what the system administrator wanted. Ideally,
> > > > we would like to distinguish between these two states.
> > > > 
> > > > Hope that suffices as an example.
> > > 
> > > So... you have something like "physically pulling out hotplug cpu" on
> > > powerpc.
> > 
> > If any system can do physical unplug, then it should do "offline"
> > with configuration changes reflected in the hypervisor and
> > other system configuration software.
> > 
> > > But maybe it is useful to take already offline cpus (from linux side),
> > > and make that visible to hypervisor, too.
> > > 
> > > So maybe something like "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/unplug"
> > > would be more useful for hypervisor case?
> > 
> > On pseries, we do an RTAS call ("stop-cpu") which effectively permantently
> > de-allocates it from the VM hands over the control to hypervisor. The
> > hypervisors may do whatever it wants including allocating it to
> > another VM. Once gone, the original VM may not get it back depending
> > on the situation.
> > 
> > The point I am making is that we may not always want to *release*
> > the CPU to hypervisor and induce a configuration change. That needs
> > to be reflected by extending the existing user interface - hence
> > the proposal for - /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<#>/state and
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<#>/available_states. It allows
> > ceding to hypervisor without de-allocating. It is a minor
> > extension of the existing interface keeping backwards compatibility
> > and platforms can allow what make sense.
> >
> 
> 
> Agreed, I've tried to come with a little ASCII art to depict your
> scenairos graphically
> 
> 
>         +--------+ don't need (offline)
>         |  OS    +----------->+------------+
>         +--+-----+            | hypervisor +-----> Reuse CPU
>            |                  |            |       for something
>            |                  |            |       else
>            |                  |            |   (visible to users)
>            |                  |            |    as resource changed
>            |                  +----------- +
>            V (needed, but can cede)
>        +------------+
>        | hypervisor | Don't reuse CPU
>        |            |  (CPU ceded)
>        |            | give back to OS
>        +------------+ when needed.
>                         (Not visible to
>                         users as so resource
>                         binding changed)

I still don't get it... _why_ should this be exposed in the guest
kernel? Why not let the hypervisor manage a guest's offline cpus in a
way it sees fit?



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