[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111130161610.69c516f7.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:16:10 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:11:31 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:29:59 -0600
> Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
>
> > +static ssize_t sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu(struct sys_device *dev,
> > + struct sysdev_attribute *attr,
> > + const char *buf, size_t size)
> > +{
> > + struct sysdev_ext_attribute *ea = SYSDEV_TO_EXT_ATTR(attr);
> > + unsigned int new;
> > + int rv;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> > + /* nohz mode not supported */
> > + if (tick_nohz_enabled)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + rv = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new);
> > + if (rv)
> > + return rv;
> > +
> > + if (new >= NR_CPUS || !cpu_online(new))
> > + return -ERANGE;
> > +
> > + *(unsigned int *)(ea->var) = new;
> > + return size;
> > +}
>
> checkpatch tells us:
>
> WARNING: usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc
>
> I think the check can just be removed? Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
> will return false?
>
And the whole thing is racy, isn't it? The "new" CPU can go offline a
nanosecond after we performed that test, so why perform it at all?
--
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