Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: New Linux CPU Hot-Plugging Works Out "Nightmare"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dante View Post
    I hope i'm wrong but i think Linux kernel developers are forgetting to maintain the quality of code, adding features to the system is important but the quality should come on top of priority.
    Why? Did they reject a patchset of yours that was intended to better quality?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dante View Post
    I hope i'm wrong but i think Linux kernel developers are forgetting to maintain the quality of code, adding features to the system is important but the quality should come on top of priority.
    My feeling is that the extent of hotplugging we have had has been "hacked" on there incrementally, and this is the reason it is less-than-stellar. The current implementation rewrite is a consequence of this and probably will make the quality go up, not down.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaprikawn View Post
    Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is cpu hot-plugging? Is it, as the name implies, installing and removing a cpu while the machine is powered on? If so, I guess this is server-level stuff, I can't see me needing to (or indeed being able to) swap out the cpu on my desktop.
    It does say to me, if as you say it's aimed at servers, and that does make sense, then why was the current system such a botched, messy, untidy job? I mean, if there's one instance where mutli-cpu support and hotplugging might be useful, it's in servers, supercomputer clusters, and that sort of thing. And that's the kind of territory where linux has tradtionally been the go-to choice, if I recall correctly. It's a tad ironic, is all I'm saying.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    This sounds like a very common pattern:

    - subsystem starts simple and grows incrementally
    - design abstraction which was probably OK for the initial code is not sufficient to deal with growing complexity
    - developers get together at conference and agree on how it should be done
    - one developer writes first pass of code following new model
    - old code tossed over nearest clump of cactus and badmouthed even by the people who wrote it

    The difference here seems to be that the author of the new code also authored a particularly colourful description of the old code

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •