From: Rusty R. <ru...@ru...> - 2002-02-27 01:39:54
|
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 19:59:49 -0800 Paul Jackson <pj...@en...> wrote: > On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Dipankar Sarma wrote: > > > > If these are processes that are bound to the CPU to be shut down, > > wouldn't it make sense to fail the CPU shut down operation ? If you > > are giving enough control to the user to make CPU affinity decisions, > > they better know how to cleanup before shutting down a CPU. > > I can imagine some users (applications) wanting to insist on > staying on a particular CPU (Pike's Peak or Bust), and some > content to be migrated automatically, and some wanting to > receive and act on requests to migrate. > > One of these policies might be default, with others as options. > > Some CPU shut down operations _can't_ fail ... if they are motivated > say by hardware about to fail. Exactly. If I run the RC5 challenge, one per cpu (using a mythical oncpu(1) program, say), I'd be very upset if my whole machine dies because it don't take down a faulty CPU! I think SIGPWR is appropriate here. If that doesn't work, then SIGKILL. Of course, ksoftirqd is a special case, etc. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. |