Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] CPU hotplug, cpusets, suspend/resume: Fixes, cleanups and optimizations

["Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 06/20/2012 07:47 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:

> On 06/20/2012 05:09 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
>> * Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/24/2012 07:46 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently the kernel doesn't handle cpusets properly during 
>>>> suspend/resume. After a resume, all non-root cpusets end up 
>>>> having only 1 cpu (the boot cpu), causing massive 
>>>> performance degradation of workloads. One major user of 
>>>> cpusets is libvirt, which means that after a 
>>>> suspend/hibernation cycle, all VMs suddenly end up running 
>>>> terribly slow!
>>>>
>>>> Also, the kernel moves the tasks from one cpuset to another 
>>>> during CPU hotplug in the suspend/resume path, leading to a 
>>>> task-management nightmare after resume.
>>>>
>>>> Patch 1 fixes this by keeping cpusets unmodified in the 
>>>> suspend/resume path. But to ensure we don't trip over, it 
>>>> keeps the sched domains updated during every CPU hotplug in 
>>>> the s/r path. This is a long standing issue and we need to 
>>>> fix up stable kernels too.
>>>>
>>>> The rest of the patches in the series are mostly 
>>>> cleanups/optimizations.
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> Would you be taking these patches through -tip for 3.6?
>>
>> They are now in tip:sched/core.
>>
>> Note that I removed the Cc:stable tag - it's not a regression 
>> fix and such it is not eligible for immediate -stable backports.
>>
>> ( Once they are upstream and have been problem-free upstream for
>>   several weeks then *maybe* we could forward the first commit
>>   to -stable, as a super special exception. )
>>
> 
> 
> OK, I get the point of allowing it to cook in the mainline for a
> while before backporting to -stable and I totally agree with that,
> but why so much of uncertainty about whether the first commit should
> (eventually) even land in -stable or not? Distros have been struggling
> to deal with this bug in userspace and have failed, and AFAIK they are
> waiting for a proper kernel fix for this bug. Agreed, this is not a
> regression per se, but isn't this bug critical enough to qualify for
> -stable?
> 


IOW, I was just wondering what that "super special exception" was
all about ;-)
 
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat