[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20111130183858.7ec2f81c.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:38:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc: 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 20:34:23 -0600 Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 06:12:05PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:06:31 -0600 Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:11:31PM -0800, Andrew Morton 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 a check against num_possible_cpus() should be OK.
> >
> > You want cpu_possible(). Or maybe cpu_present().
>
> May be splitting hairs, but I think I like num_present_cpus even better.
Does that work correctly if the cpu-present map has holes?
> >
> > > >
> > > > I think the check can just be removed? Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
> > > > will return false?
> > >
> > > A value > NR_CPUS and < MAX_INT caused a panic in sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu,
> > > presumably from the cpu_online() check. The check against NR_CPUS avoided
> > > the panic.
> >
> > OK. Well, it's not a panic:
>
> Actually, I didn't have CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS turned on.
So why did it crash? test_bit() far out of range?
--
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