lhcs-devel — Development List for Hotplug CPU

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Raj, A. <ash...@in...>]

No problem in getting these to LTP.


Cheers,
ashok raj
- Open Source Technology Center
   


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Subrata Modak [mailto:su...@li...]
>Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:18 AM
>To: Raj, Ashok; br...@us...; br...@br...; Ray Bryant; Lee Schermerhorn
>Cc: ksu...@us...; y-...@us...; br...@os...;
>js...@au...; lhn...@li...; lhc...@li...; lhms-
>de...@li...
>Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP
>
>Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
>
>Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
>Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
>http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
>
>I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
>objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
>
>Regards--
>Subrata
>(LTP Maintainer)
>
>On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>> I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
>> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
>> added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
>> issue.
>>
>> I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
>> them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
>> of your usage.
>>
>> Regards--
>> Subrata
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
>> > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
>> > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
>> > few issues:
>> >
>> > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
>> > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
>> > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
>> > used under GPL.
>> >
>> > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
>> > point us to proper place where we can find them.
>> >
>> > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
>> > forward for some pointers.
>> >
>> > Regards--
>> > Subrata
>> >
>> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
>> > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
>> > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
>> > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
>> > > >>> Hi,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
>> > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
>> > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
>> > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
>> > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
>> > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
>> > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
>> > > >>> them to be in LTP.
>> > > >> Hi Subrata,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
>> > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
>> > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
>> > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
>> > > >
>> > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
>> > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
>> > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
>> > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
>> > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
>> > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
>> > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
>> > > > improve documentation in the run.
>> > >
>> > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
>> > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
>> > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > Louis
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
>> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
>> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ltp-list mailing list
>> > Ltp...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 13:34 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>  Signed-off-by:Bryce Harrington <br...@ca...>

Thanks Bryce. We would take these tests forward from here now. Will
maintain and update them. Please visit them whenever you feel they need
updates at:
http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/,

Regards--
Subrata

> 
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:20:19AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:54 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > The test suite is considered complete, and the project funding the work
> > > has long since been ended.  No further development work is planned.
> > 
> > Well, while the LTP community uses these tests they will be improved
> > upon in the course of usage. But we are thankful to get the initial
> > thing in Place.
> > 
> > I have another irritating thing pending for you. Like the Linux kernel
> > code, any contribution to LTP as well requires a DCO signoff. Since i
> > imported these tests to LTP, as i thought that they are under GPL, i
> > still require a Signed-off-by: clause from the Author/Copyright holder.
> > You can do this just by replying to this mail with a Signed-off-by:Bryce
> > Harrington <br...@ca...> clause. That will do the Job. Else,
> > under IBM OSSC law, i will be made to remove this from LTP repository. I
> > would be afraid that will really hurt the larger testing community.
> > Kindly provide a DCO signoff in reply to this mail. Thanks for taking
> > this trouble.
> > 
> > Regards--
> > Subrata
> > 
> > > 
> > > Bryce
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:09AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > Thanks Bryce for this contribution. May i also request you to kindly
> > > > intimate us if you are making some improvements in those existing test
> > > > cases, so that we can also import those changes in LTP ?
> > > > 
> > > > Regards--
> > > > Subrata
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:43 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > > > I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Bryce
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> > > > > > Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> > > > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> > > > > > objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > (LTP Maintainer)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > > > > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > > > > > > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > > > > > > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > > > > > > of your usage.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > > > > > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > > > > > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > > > > > > few issues:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > > > > > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > > > > > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > > > > > > used under GPL.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > > > > > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > > > > > > forward for some pointers.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > > > > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > > > > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > > > > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > > > > > > >>> 	
> > > > > > > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > > > > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > > > > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > > > > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > > > > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > > > > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > > > > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > > > > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > > > > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > > > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > > > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > > > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > > > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > > > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > > > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > > > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > > > > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > > > > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Louis
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > > > > > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > > > > > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > > > > > > Ltp...@li...
> > > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
> > 

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Bryce H. <br...@ca...>]

 Signed-off-by:Bryce Harrington <br...@ca...>

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:20:19AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:54 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > The test suite is considered complete, and the project funding the work
> > has long since been ended.  No further development work is planned.
> 
> Well, while the LTP community uses these tests they will be improved
> upon in the course of usage. But we are thankful to get the initial
> thing in Place.
> 
> I have another irritating thing pending for you. Like the Linux kernel
> code, any contribution to LTP as well requires a DCO signoff. Since i
> imported these tests to LTP, as i thought that they are under GPL, i
> still require a Signed-off-by: clause from the Author/Copyright holder.
> You can do this just by replying to this mail with a Signed-off-by:Bryce
> Harrington <br...@ca...> clause. That will do the Job. Else,
> under IBM OSSC law, i will be made to remove this from LTP repository. I
> would be afraid that will really hurt the larger testing community.
> Kindly provide a DCO signoff in reply to this mail. Thanks for taking
> this trouble.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 
> > 
> > Bryce
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:09AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > Thanks Bryce for this contribution. May i also request you to kindly
> > > intimate us if you are making some improvements in those existing test
> > > cases, so that we can also import those changes in LTP ?
> > > 
> > > Regards--
> > > Subrata
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:43 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > > I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.
> > > > 
> > > > Bryce
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> > > > > Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> > > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> > > > > 
> > > > > I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> > > > > objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards--
> > > > > Subrata
> > > > > (LTP Maintainer)
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > > > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > > > > > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > > > > > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > > > > > of your usage.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > > > > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > > > > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > > > > > few issues:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > > > > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > > > > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > > > > > used under GPL.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > > > > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > > > > > forward for some pointers.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > > > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > > > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > > > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > > > > > >>> 	
> > > > > > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > > > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > > > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > > > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > > > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > > > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > > > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > > > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > > > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > > > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > > > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Louis
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > > > > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > > > > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > > > > > Ltp...@li...
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
> 

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

On Mon, 2008-06-16 at 10:54 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> The test suite is considered complete, and the project funding the work
> has long since been ended.  No further development work is planned.

Well, while the LTP community uses these tests they will be improved
upon in the course of usage. But we are thankful to get the initial
thing in Place.

I have another irritating thing pending for you. Like the Linux kernel
code, any contribution to LTP as well requires a DCO signoff. Since i
imported these tests to LTP, as i thought that they are under GPL, i
still require a Signed-off-by: clause from the Author/Copyright holder.
You can do this just by replying to this mail with a Signed-off-by:Bryce
Harrington <br...@ca...> clause. That will do the Job. Else,
under IBM OSSC law, i will be made to remove this from LTP repository. I
would be afraid that will really hurt the larger testing community.
Kindly provide a DCO signoff in reply to this mail. Thanks for taking
this trouble.

Regards--
Subrata

> 
> Bryce
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:09AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > Thanks Bryce for this contribution. May i also request you to kindly
> > intimate us if you are making some improvements in those existing test
> > cases, so that we can also import those changes in LTP ?
> > 
> > Regards--
> > Subrata
> > 
> > On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:43 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > > I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.
> > > 
> > > Bryce
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> > > > 
> > > > Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> > > > Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> > > > 
> > > > I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> > > > objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards--
> > > > Subrata
> > > > (LTP Maintainer)
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > > > > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > > > > issue.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > > > > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > > > > of your usage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards--
> > > > > Subrata
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > > > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > > > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > > > > few issues:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > > > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > > > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > > > > used under GPL.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > > > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > > > > forward for some pointers.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards--
> > > > > > Subrata
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > > > > >>> 	
> > > > > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Louis
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > > > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > > > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > > > > Ltp...@li...
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Bryce H. <br...@ca...>]

The test suite is considered complete, and the project funding the work
has long since been ended.  No further development work is planned.

Bryce

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:49:09AM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Thanks Bryce for this contribution. May i also request you to kindly
> intimate us if you are making some improvements in those existing test
> cases, so that we can also import those changes in LTP ?
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 
> On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:43 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.
> > 
> > Bryce
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> > > 
> > > Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> > > Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> > > 
> > > I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> > > objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> > > 
> > > Regards--
> > > Subrata
> > > (LTP Maintainer)
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > > > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > > > issue.
> > > > 
> > > > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > > > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > > > of your usage.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards--
> > > > Subrata
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > 
> > > > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > > > few issues:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > > > used under GPL.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > > > forward for some pointers.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards--
> > > > > Subrata
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > > > >>> 	
> > > > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Louis
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > > > Ltp...@li...
> > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

Thanks Bryce for this contribution. May i also request you to kindly
intimate us if you are making some improvements in those existing test
cases, so that we can also import those changes in LTP ?

Regards--
Subrata

On Sun, 2008-06-15 at 14:43 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.
> 
> Bryce
> 
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> > 
> > Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> > Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> > 
> > I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> > objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> > 
> > Regards--
> > Subrata
> > (LTP Maintainer)
> > 
> > On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > > issue.
> > > 
> > > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > > of your usage.
> > > 
> > > Regards--
> > > Subrata
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > > Hi All,
> > > > 
> > > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > > few issues:
> > > > 
> > > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > > used under GPL.
> > > > 
> > > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > > 
> > > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > > forward for some pointers.
> > > > 
> > > > Regards--
> > > > Subrata
> > > > 
> > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > > >>> 	
> > > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Louis
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > > Ltp...@li...
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Bryce H. <br...@ca...>]

I have no objection for the cpu hotplug tests to be included in LTP.

Bryce

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 11:47:41PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,
> 
> Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
> Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/
> 
> I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
> objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> (LTP Maintainer)
> 
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> > http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> > added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> > issue.
> > 
> > I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> > them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> > of your usage.
> > 
> > Regards--
> > Subrata
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > > 
> > > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > > few issues:
> > > 
> > > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > > used under GPL.
> > > 
> > > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > > 
> > > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > > forward for some pointers.
> > > 
> > > Regards--
> > > Subrata
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > > >>> 	
> > > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > > 
> > > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > > 
> > > > Regards,
> > > > 
> > > > Louis
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ltp-list mailing list
> > > Ltp...@li...
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

Hi Bryce/Ashok/Bryant/Lee,

Would you have any objection in letting these test cases (CPU and MEMORY
Hotplug) being used inside LTP:
http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/

I found that you are the authors of these test cases. If you have no
objection, then can you kindly sign-off in reply to this mail.

Regards--
Subrata
(LTP Maintainer)

On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 18:25 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
> http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
> added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
> issue.
> 
> I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
> them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
> of your usage.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> > (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> > http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> > few issues:
> > 
> > 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> > do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> > no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> > used under GPL.
> > 
> > 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> > point us to proper place where we can find them.
> > 
> > I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> > forward for some pointers.
> > 
> > Regards--
> > Subrata
> > 
> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > > >>> 	
> > > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > > >> Hi Subrata,
> > > >>
> > > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > > 
> > > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > > improve documentation in the run.
> > > 
> > > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Louis
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltp-list mailing list
> > Ltp...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [LTP] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

I decided to merge this with LTP; available at:
http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/ltp/ltp/testcases/kernel/hotplug/. I also
added an additional COPYING file under the memory_hotplug for the GPLv2
issue.

I hope all of you will use this and provide more comments/fixes for
them. Some of you can also improve upon the documentation part on course
of your usage.

Regards--
Subrata


On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 20:32 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
> (http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
> http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
> few issues:
> 
> 1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
> do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
> no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
> used under GPL.
> 
> 2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
> point us to proper place where we can find them.
> 
> I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
> forward for some pointers.
> 
> Regards--
> Subrata
> 
> On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> > >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> > >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> > >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> > >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> > >>> 	
> > >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> > >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> > >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> > >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> > >>> them to be in LTP.
> > >> Hi Subrata,
> > >>
> > >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> > >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> > >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> > >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > > 
> > > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > > improve documentation in the run.
> > 
> > I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> > their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> > anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Louis
> > 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH] CPU & MEMORY Hotplug test cases for LTP

[Subrata M. <su...@li...>]

Hi All,

We plan to integrate and use the Memory Hotplug testcases inside LTP
(http://ltp.sourceforge.net/). We found these test cases from
http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/tests/. We now have
few issues:

1) Are all the tests inside memtoy-0.3d.tar.gz released under GPL? as we
do not see the GPL definition in all of those sources. Moreover there is
no COPYING file at the top level which says that these test cases can be
used under GPL.

2) There seems to be less documentation inside the same. Can anyone
point us to proper place where we can find them.

I tried to mail to some ids, got delivery failure. We are looking
forward for some pointers.

Regards--
Subrata

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 16:36 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:40 +0200, Louis Rilling wrote:
> >> Subrata Modak a écrit :
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I found the CPU and Memory Hotplug (very important kernel features) test
> >>> cases at http://devresources.linux-foundation.org/dev/hotplug/, which
> >>> can be used under GPL. I thought of integrating the same inside LTP as
> >>> these can be very valuable in your regular testing work.
> >>> 	
> >>> Presently i propose them to be integrated, but run independently, until
> >>> some of you share your experience in using them and integrating them
> >>> with default LTP run. I would like to know if it will be real beneficial
> >>> to have these test cases inside LTP. The Patch proposes the way i want
> >>> them to be in LTP.
> >> Hi Subrata,
> >>
> >> As far as Kerlabs is concerned, we expect these tests to become
> >> beneficial in a near future. We are ok with your proposal. We would just
> >> like the memory hotplug tests to be a bit more documented, for instance
> >> as well documented as the first cpu hotplug tests in your patch.
> > 
> > That´s true. But since these test cases are obtained from a third
> > source, documentation can be produced only when some of us has used them
> > over time and has known it´s nature well. May be some of us will be able
> > to do it in future after considerable hit-and-trial use. Meanwhile i
> > will always be watching activities in these test cases mailing list. Any
> > updates from their side will be immediately reflected in ltp. Please
> > update results of their runs with us in the mailing list, we can also
> > improve documentation in the run.
> 
> I was thinking of suggesting to the developers of these tests to improve
> their documentation. Of course, if they do not maintain these tests
> anymore, it's up to interested parties to do this documentation work...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Louis
> 

[lhcs-devel] CPU hotplug and physical poweroff of cpus

[xb <xav...@bu...>]

Hi all,

I am checking the possibility to use cpu hot plug as a way to reduce the 
power consummation in a machine when the machine is idle for some time.
I know that the C-states and P-states provide some mechanisms to reduce 
the power on cpus, but I would like to check the possibility to poweroff 
all cpus menus 1 through.
Having a look to cpu hotplug on x86-64 and ia64 platforms, I could try 
using the /sys/.../cpu<i>/online interface to add/remove cpus in the 
configuration, that works fine. But I suppose this does not curently 
powers on/off the cpus.
Apparently, the physical add/remove of the configuration is done through 
the acpi, setting CONFIG_ACPI_HOTPLUG_CPU=1.
But having a look at the code, I could not find how linux interferes 
with ACPI to power on/off the cpus:
. which ACPI method is called ?
. do platforms exist that implement cpu on/off through ACPI. ?
I think that such a functionality is provided by suspend/resume to RAM 
for PCs, that logically hotplugs/unplugs the cpus and call the bios in 
some way to poweroff everything unless the memory.
Thanks in advance if you can provide me some informations.
Xavier

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Suspend and cpu hotplug fixes

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> I estimate that that take_cpu_down will run for about a millisecond if
> there are a few hundred vcpus which have last run on the dying cpu (and
> that's an extreme case, which is not expected in normal operation).

I measured vmclear time on an uncached vmcs (which would be all except 
for a handful which are cached on the cpu core) at 144 cycles.  Assuming 
a couple of cache misses for walking the list and accessing the vmcs, 
we're at about 500 cycles per vcpu, or 250us @ 2GHz.  So worst case is 
significantly less than 1 ms.

Is this acceptable for take_cpu_down()?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Suspend and cpu hotplug fixes

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 20:10 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> The following patchset makes kvm more robust wrt cpu hotunplug, and
>> makes suspend-to-ram actually work.  Suspend-to-disk benefits from
>> the cpu hotunplug improvements as well.
>>
>> The major issue is that KVM wants to disable the virtualization
>> extensions at a point in time when no user processes are schedulable
>> on the victim cpu.  No current notifier exists, so a new one,
>> CPU_DYING,
>> is added for the purpose.
>>
>> Should there be no objections, I will submit this patchset for
>> inclusion
>> in 2.6.22, and backport it to 2.6.21.stable.
>>     
> Is it possible disabling kvm can be done at the begining of play_dead?
> take_cpu_done is designed to run fast.
>
>   

It's possible, but I have issues with play_dead():

- it is arch specific, so we need to modify i386, x86_64, and ia64 (when
we have an ia64 kvm port)
- there is no hook available here to call modules like the hotplug notifier

I estimate that that take_cpu_down will run for about a millisecond if
there are a few hundred vcpus which have last run on the dying cpu (and
that's an extreme case, which is not expected in normal operation).  If
that's too much, it can be reduced as follows:

- add a per-cpu list of vcpus that have last run on a cpu, maintained at
runtime
- on CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, walk the list and vmclear any vcpus that last ran
on the dying cpu
- on CPU_DYING (take_cpu_down), walk the list again an vmclear any vcpus
that managed to get scheduled to the dying vcpu again.  the list should
not have more than 1-2 entries in normal operation.


-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Suspend and cpu hotplug fixes

[Shaohua Li <sha...@in...>]

On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 20:10 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The following patchset makes kvm more robust wrt cpu hotunplug, and
> makes suspend-to-ram actually work.  Suspend-to-disk benefits from
> the cpu hotunplug improvements as well.
> 
> The major issue is that KVM wants to disable the virtualization
> extensions at a point in time when no user processes are schedulable
> on the victim cpu.  No current notifier exists, so a new one,
> CPU_DYING,
> is added for the purpose.
> 
> Should there be no objections, I will submit this patchset for
> inclusion
> in 2.6.22, and backport it to 2.6.21.stable.
Is it possible disabling kvm can be done at the begining of play_dead?
take_cpu_done is designed to run fast.

Thanks,
Shaohua

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu()

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Roland Dreier wrote:
> I don't see any documented restrictions about preemption being
> disabled when this function is called, but...
>
>  > +int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
>  > +	       int retry, int wait)
>  > +{
>  > +	int ret;
>  > +	int this_cpu;
>  > +
>  > +	this_cpu = get_cpu();
>
> what if a preempt and reschedule to a different CPU happens right
> here, after this_cpu is set?
>
>  > +	if (this_cpu == cpu) {
>   

get_cpu() disables preemption (the return value would be meaningless 
otherwise).


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [lhcs-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu()

[Roland D. <rd...@ci...>]

I don't see any documented restrictions about preemption being
disabled when this function is called, but...

 > +int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
 > +	       int retry, int wait)
 > +{
 > +	int ret;
 > +	int this_cpu;
 > +
 > +	this_cpu = get_cpu();

what if a preempt and reschedule to a different CPU happens right
here, after this_cpu is set?

 > +	if (this_cpu == cpu) {

Re: [lhcs-devel] [kvm-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu()

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:10:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> This defines on_one_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
>> except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu.  Can also be
>> seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the
>> current cpu specially).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/smp.h |   15 +++++++++++++++
>>  kernel/softirq.c    |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Call a function on one processor
>> + */
>> +int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void *info,
>> +	       int retry, int wait);
>>
>>     
>
> Would you mind renaming that one to simply 'on_cpu'? It's even shorter and
> clearly everybody will know what its purpose is. Also I doubt we will ever
> have something like 'on_two_cpus'.
>   

That was my first choice, but then I went for symmetry with 
on_each_cpu().  I'll rename it to on_cpu() unless there are objections.


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

Re: [lhcs-devel] [kvm-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu()

[Heiko C. <hei...@de...>]

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:10:12PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> This defines on_one_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
> except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu.  Can also be
> seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the
> current cpu specially).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
> ---
>  include/linux/smp.h |   15 +++++++++++++++
>  kernel/softirq.c    |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> +/*
> + * Call a function on one processor
> + */
> +int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void *info,
> +	       int retry, int wait);
> 

Would you mind renaming that one to simply 'on_cpu'? It's even shorter and
clearly everybody will know what its purpose is. Also I doubt we will ever
have something like 'on_two_cpus'.

Re: [lhcs-devel] [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Suspend and cpu hotplug fixes

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Avi Kivity wrote:
> The following patchset makes kvm more robust wrt cpu hotunplug, and
> makes suspend-to-ram actually work.  Suspend-to-disk benefits from
> the cpu hotunplug improvements as well.
>
>   

Here's the patchset diffstat in case anyone's interested:

 arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c |    6 ++-
 drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c                    |   51 
+++++++++++++++++++++--------
 include/linux/notifier.h                  |    3 ++
 include/linux/smp.h                       |   15 ++++++++
 kernel/cpu.c                              |   16 ++++++++-
 kernel/cpuset.c                           |    3 ++
 kernel/softirq.c                          |   24 +++++++++++++
 7 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)


-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 1/7] HOTPLUG: Add CPU_DYING notifier

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

KVM wants a notification when a cpu is about to die, so it can disable
hardware extensions, but at a time when user processes cannot be scheduled
on the cpu, so it doesn't try to use virtualization extensions after they
have been disabled.

This adds a CPU_DYING notification.  The notification is called in atomic
context on the doomed cpu.

Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
---
 include/linux/notifier.h |    3 +++
 kernel/cpu.c             |   16 ++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/notifier.h b/include/linux/notifier.h
index 9431101..576f2bb 100644
--- a/include/linux/notifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/notifier.h
@@ -196,6 +196,8 @@ extern int __srcu_notifier_call_chain(struct srcu_notifier_head *nh,
 #define CPU_DEAD		0x0007 /* CPU (unsigned)v dead */
 #define CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE	0x0008 /* Acquire all hotcpu locks */
 #define CPU_LOCK_RELEASE	0x0009 /* Release all hotcpu locks */
+#define CPU_DYING		0x000A /* CPU (unsigned)v not running any task,
+				        * not handling interrupts, soon dead */
 
 /* Used for CPU hotplug events occuring while tasks are frozen due to a suspend
  * operation in progress
@@ -208,6 +210,7 @@ extern int __srcu_notifier_call_chain(struct srcu_notifier_head *nh,
 #define CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN	(CPU_DOWN_PREPARE | CPU_TASKS_FROZEN)
 #define CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN	(CPU_DOWN_FAILED | CPU_TASKS_FROZEN)
 #define CPU_DEAD_FROZEN		(CPU_DEAD | CPU_TASKS_FROZEN)
+#define CPU_DYING_FROZEN	(CPU_DYING | CPU_TASKS_FROZEN)
 
 #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
 #endif /* _LINUX_NOTIFIER_H */
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index 208cf34..181ae70 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -103,11 +103,19 @@ static inline void check_for_tasks(int cpu)
 	write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
 }
 
+struct take_cpu_down_param {
+	unsigned long mod;
+	void *hcpu;
+};
+
 /* Take this CPU down. */
-static int take_cpu_down(void *unused)
+static int take_cpu_down(void *_param)
 {
+	struct take_cpu_down_param *param = _param;
 	int err;
 
+	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_DYING | param->mod,
+				param->hcpu);
 	/* Ensure this CPU doesn't handle any more interrupts. */
 	err = __cpu_disable();
 	if (err < 0)
@@ -127,6 +135,10 @@ static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
 	cpumask_t old_allowed, tmp;
 	void *hcpu = (void *)(long)cpu;
 	unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
+	struct take_cpu_down_param tcd_param = {
+		.mod = mod,
+		.hcpu = hcpu,
+	};
 
 	if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
 		return -EBUSY;
@@ -153,7 +165,7 @@ static int _cpu_down(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
 	set_cpus_allowed(current, tmp);
 
 	mutex_lock(&cpu_bitmask_lock);
-	p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, NULL, cpu);
+	p = __stop_machine_run(take_cpu_down, &tcd_param, cpu);
 	mutex_unlock(&cpu_bitmask_lock);
 
 	if (IS_ERR(p) || cpu_online(cpu)) {
-- 
1.5.0.6

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 4/7] SMP: Implement on_one_cpu()

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

This defines on_one_cpu() which is similar to smp_call_function_single()
except that it works if cpu happens to be the current cpu.  Can also be
seen as a complement to on_each_cpu() (which also doesn't treat the
current cpu specially).

Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
---
 include/linux/smp.h |   15 +++++++++++++++
 kernel/softirq.c    |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/smp.h b/include/linux/smp.h
index 3f70149..4ff8d68 100644
--- a/include/linux/smp.h
+++ b/include/linux/smp.h
@@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ int smp_call_function_single(int cpuid, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
  * Call a function on all processors
  */
 int on_each_cpu(void (*func) (void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait);
+/*
+ * Call a function on one processor
+ */
+int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void *info,
+	       int retry, int wait);
 
 #define MSG_ALL_BUT_SELF	0x8000	/* Assume <32768 CPU's */
 #define MSG_ALL			0x8001
@@ -95,6 +100,16 @@ static inline int up_smp_call_function(void)
 		local_irq_enable();		\
 		0;				\
 	})
+
+static inline int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func)(void *info), void *info,
+			     int retry, int wait)
+{
+	local_irq_disable();
+	func(info);
+	local_irq_enable();
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static inline void smp_send_reschedule(int cpu) { }
 #define num_booting_cpus()			1
 #define smp_prepare_boot_cpu()			do {} while (0)
diff --git a/kernel/softirq.c b/kernel/softirq.c
index 0b9886a..b1a3284 100644
--- a/kernel/softirq.c
+++ b/kernel/softirq.c
@@ -658,4 +658,28 @@ int on_each_cpu(void (*func) (void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait)
 	return ret;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_each_cpu);
+
+/*
+ * Call a function on one processor, which might be the currently executing
+ * processor.
+ */
+int on_one_cpu(int cpu, void (*func) (void *info), void *info,
+	       int retry, int wait)
+{
+	int ret;
+	int this_cpu;
+
+	this_cpu = get_cpu();
+	if (this_cpu == cpu) {
+		local_irq_disable();
+		func(info);
+		local_irq_enable();
+		ret = 0;
+	} else
+		ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, func, info, retry, wait);
+	put_cpu();
+	return ret;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(on_one_cpu);
+
 #endif
-- 
1.5.0.6

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 7/7] KVM: Use CPU_DYING for disabling virtualization

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

Only at the CPU_DYING stage can we be sure that no user process will
be scheduled onto the cpu and oops when trying to use virtualization
extensions.

Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
---
 drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
index a632c8d..e9aa86d 100644
--- a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -2915,8 +2915,8 @@ static int kvm_cpu_hotplug(struct notifier_block *notifier, unsigned long val,
 	int cpu = (long)v;
 
 	switch (val) {
-	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
-	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
+	case CPU_DYING:
+	case CPU_DYING_FROZEN:
 	case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
 	case CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN:
 		printk(KERN_INFO "kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU%d\n",
-- 
1.5.0.6

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Suspend and cpu hotplug fixes

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

The following patchset makes kvm more robust wrt cpu hotunplug, and
makes suspend-to-ram actually work.  Suspend-to-disk benefits from
the cpu hotunplug improvements as well.

The major issue is that KVM wants to disable the virtualization
extensions at a point in time when no user processes are schedulable
on the victim cpu.  No current notifier exists, so a new one, CPU_DYING,
is added for the purpose.

Should there be no objections, I will submit this patchset for inclusion
in 2.6.22, and backport it to 2.6.21.stable.

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 5/7] KVM: Keep track of which cpus have virtualization enabled

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

By keeping track of which cpus have virtualization enabled, we
prevent double-enable or double-disable during hotplug, which is a
very fatal oops.

Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
---
 drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c |   47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 0d89260..9738d51 100644
--- a/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/drivers/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@
 #include <linux/file.h>
 #include <linux/fs.h>
 #include <linux/mount.h>
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/cpumask.h>
 
 #include "x86_emulate.h"
 #include "segment_descriptor.h"
@@ -50,8 +52,12 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kvm_lock);
 static LIST_HEAD(vm_list);
 
+static cpumask_t cpus_hardware_enabled;
+
 struct kvm_arch_ops *kvm_arch_ops;
 
+static void hardware_disable(void *ignored);
+
 #define STAT_OFFSET(x) offsetof(struct kvm_vcpu, stat.x)
 
 static struct kvm_stats_debugfs_item {
@@ -2839,7 +2845,7 @@ static int kvm_reboot(struct notifier_block *notifier, unsigned long val,
 		 * in vmx root mode.
 		 */
 		printk(KERN_INFO "kvm: exiting hardware virtualization\n");
-		on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
+		on_each_cpu(hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
 	}
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
@@ -2882,6 +2888,27 @@ static void decache_vcpus_on_cpu(int cpu)
 	spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
 }
 
+static void hardware_enable(void *junk)
+{
+	int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+
+	if (cpu_isset(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled))
+		return;
+	cpu_set(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled);
+	kvm_arch_ops->hardware_enable(NULL);
+}
+
+static void hardware_disable(void *junk)
+{
+	int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
+
+	if (!cpu_isset(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled))
+		return;
+	cpu_clear(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled);
+	decache_vcpus_on_cpu(cpu);
+	kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable(NULL);
+}
+
 static int kvm_cpu_hotplug(struct notifier_block *notifier, unsigned long val,
 			   void *v)
 {
@@ -2894,16 +2921,13 @@ static int kvm_cpu_hotplug(struct notifier_block *notifier, unsigned long val,
 	case CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN:
 		printk(KERN_INFO "kvm: disabling virtualization on CPU%d\n",
 		       cpu);
-		decache_vcpus_on_cpu(cpu);
-		smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable,
-					 NULL, 0, 1);
+		smp_call_function_single(cpu, hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
 		break;
 	case CPU_ONLINE:
 	case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
 		printk(KERN_INFO "kvm: enabling virtualization on CPU%d\n",
 		       cpu);
-		smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_arch_ops->hardware_enable,
-					 NULL, 0, 1);
+		smp_call_function_single(cpu, hardware_enable, NULL, 0, 1);
 		break;
 	}
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
@@ -2960,14 +2984,13 @@ static void kvm_exit_debug(void)
 
 static int kvm_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
 {
-	decache_vcpus_on_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id());
-	on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
+	on_each_cpu(hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 0);
 	return 0;
 }
 
 static int kvm_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
 {
-	on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_enable, NULL, 0, 1);
+	on_each_cpu(hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 0);
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -3020,7 +3043,7 @@ int kvm_init_arch(struct kvm_arch_ops *ops, struct module *module)
 	if (r < 0)
 		goto out;
 
-	on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_enable, NULL, 0, 1);
+	on_each_cpu(hardware_enable, NULL, 0, 1);
 	r = register_cpu_notifier(&kvm_cpu_notifier);
 	if (r)
 		goto out_free_1;
@@ -3052,7 +3075,7 @@ out_free_2:
 	unregister_reboot_notifier(&kvm_reboot_notifier);
 	unregister_cpu_notifier(&kvm_cpu_notifier);
 out_free_1:
-	on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
+	on_each_cpu(hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
 	kvm_arch_ops->hardware_unsetup();
 out:
 	kvm_arch_ops = NULL;
@@ -3066,7 +3089,7 @@ void kvm_exit_arch(void)
 	sysdev_class_unregister(&kvm_sysdev_class);
 	unregister_reboot_notifier(&kvm_reboot_notifier);
 	unregister_cpu_notifier(&kvm_cpu_notifier);
-	on_each_cpu(kvm_arch_ops->hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
+	on_each_cpu(hardware_disable, NULL, 0, 1);
 	kvm_arch_ops->hardware_unsetup();
 	kvm_arch_ops = NULL;
 }
-- 
1.5.0.6

[lhcs-devel] [PATCH 3/7] HOTPLUG: Adapt thermal throttle to CPU_DYING

[Avi K. <av...@qu...>]

CPU_DYING is notified in atomic context, so no taking mutexes here.

Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <av...@qu...>
---
 arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c |    6 ++++--
 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
index 7ba7c3a..1203dc5 100644
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mcheck/therm_throt.c
@@ -134,19 +134,21 @@ static __cpuinit int thermal_throttle_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
 	int err;
 
 	sys_dev = get_cpu_sysdev(cpu);
-	mutex_lock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 	switch (action) {
 	case CPU_ONLINE:
 	case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
+		mutex_lock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 		err = thermal_throttle_add_dev(sys_dev);
+		mutex_unlock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 		WARN_ON(err);
 		break;
 	case CPU_DEAD:
 	case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
+		mutex_lock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 		thermal_throttle_remove_dev(sys_dev);
+		mutex_unlock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 		break;
 	}
-	mutex_unlock(&therm_cpu_lock);
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
 
-- 
1.5.0.6