From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754329Ab2BIH5V (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:57:21 -0500
Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:49281 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751304Ab2BIH5T (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:57:19 -0500
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:57:01 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, paul@paulmenage.org, rjw@sisk.pl,
        tj@kernel.org, frank.rowand@am.sony.com, pjt@google.com,
        tglx@linutronix.de, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, prashanth@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets: Fix CPU online handling
 related to cpusets
Message-ID: <20120209075701.GE18387@elte.hu>
References: <20120207185411.7482.43576.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com>
 <1328671335.2482.72.camel@laptop>
 <4F32174E.2050207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F32174E.2050207@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0
X-ELTE-SpamLevel: 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no
X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 
X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1
 -2.0 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
                             [score: 0.0000]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> IOW, consider:
> 
> cpuset A has 0-10
> 
> - Take CPU 10 offline
>   [We are forced to remove CPU 10 from cpuset A, which becomes 0-9 now]
> 
> 
>    <Userspace didn't request any change to cpuset A>
> 
> 
> - Bring back CPU 10 online
> 
> Now cpuset A is still 0-9! IMO, it should have been 0-10.

Why is CPU 10 taken out of the cpuset to begin with?

The cpuset code should be fixed to work with offline CPUs as 
well - it can obviously not schedule to them, but otherwise it 
should be fine to have a wider cpuset than the hw can support.

Thanks,

	Ingo