[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101223022428.GB12333@shaohui>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:24:28 +0800
From: Shaohui Zheng <shaohui.zheng@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: shaohui.zheng@...el.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com,
lethal@...ux-sh.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, gregkh@...e.de,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.Lu@....COM>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [5/7, v9] NUMA Hotplug Emulator: Support cpu probe/release in
x86_64
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 07:21:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > checkpatch?
> >
> > it is a warning, so I ignore it.
>
> Don't ignore warnings! At least, not until you've understood the
> reason for them and have a *reason* to ignore them.
>
> simple_strtoul() will silently accept input of the form "42foo",
> treating it as "42". That's a userspace bug and the kernel should
> report it. This means that the code should be changed to handle error
> returns from strict_strtoul(). And those error paths should be tested.
>
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (selected >= num_possible_cpus()) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_ERR "No free cpu, give up cpu probing.\n");
> > > > + return -EPERM;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* register cpu */
> > > > + arch_register_cpu_node(selected, nid);
> > > > + acpi_map_lsapic_emu(selected, nid);
> > > > +
> > > > + return count;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_cpu_probe);
> > >
> > > arch_cpu_probe() is global and exported to modules, but is undocumented.
> > >
> > > If it had been documented, I might have been able to work out why arg
> > > `count' is checked, but never used.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry, Andrew, I did not catch it. Do you mean to add the document before
> > the definition of the function arch_cpu_probe?
>
> Sure, add a comment documenting the function.
I understand, I will add comments for both arch_cpu_probe/arch_cpu_release.
>
> Why *does* it check `count' and then not use it?
>
it is a tricky thing. When I debug it under a Virtual Machine, If I do a cpu
probe via sysfs cpu/probe interface, The function arch_cpu_probe will be called
__three__ times, but only one call is valid, so I add a check on `count` to
ignore the invalid calls.
> >
> > > > + /* cpu 0 is not hotplugable */
> > > > + if (cpu == 0) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_ERR "can not release cpu 0.\n");
> > >
> > > It's generally better to make kernel messages self-identifying.
> > > Especially error messages. If someone comes along and sees "can not
> > > release cpu 0" in their logs, they don't have a clue what caused it
> > > unless they download the kernel sources and go grepping.
> > >
> >
> > How about "arch_cpu_release: can not release cpu 0.\n"?
>
> Better, although "arch_cpu_release" isn't very meaningful to an
> administrator. "NUMA hotplug remove" or something like that would be
> more useful.
>
> All these messages should be looked at from the point of view of the
> people who they are to serve. Although in this special case, that's
> most likely to be a kernel developer so I guess such clarity isn't
> needed.
>
It is a good lesson for me, when I meet the similar problem next time, I should
consider more from the point of the user.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Shaohui
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists