[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F851E91.70603@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:32:57 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
"rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Milton Miller <miltonm@....com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: CPU Hotplug rework
On 04/11/2012 06:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:37:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 17:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>
>>>> Just to throw out the stupid silly approach.
>>>>
>>>> What about creating a "__register_cpu_notifier()" that just does:
>>>>
>>>> int __ref __register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>>>> {
>>>> return raw_notifier_chain_register(&cpu_chain, nb);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Also making cpu_maps_update_begin/done() global (and probably rename
>>>> them).
>>
>> I just noticed that the cpu_maps_update_begin/done() are already global.
>>
>>>>
>>>> and then in the above code do:
>>>>
>>>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
>>>> __register_cpu_notifier(nb);
>>>> do_setup();
>>>> cpu_maps_update_done();
>>>>
>>>>
Wow! Believe it or not, this is precisely the crux of the approach I was
suggesting all along!! :-) Just that when put to code, it looked slightly
different than this.. Sorry for not being clear.
So here is what I proposed, in a simplified form:
Modify the existing register_cpu_notifier() to this (by possibly giving
it a different name):
int __ref register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
int (*do_setup)(void))
{
int ret;
cpu_maps_update_begin();
ret = raw_notifier_chain_register(&cpu_chain, nb);
do_setup();
cpu_maps_update_done();
return ret;
}
and then, in the caller, do:
register_cpu_notifier(nb, do_setup);
If the caller doesn't need any such extra setup, just do:
register_cpu_notifier(nb, NULL);
Of course, register_cpu_notifier() should handle NULL properly.
(My patch [1] handles it, along with some other special cases.)
That's it!
Also, it is to be noted that cpu_maps_update_begin/done() are global, but
not exported symbols - so modules can't use them. With the above approach,
we need not make them exported symbols, since the caller need not care about
these locks at all.
>>>> Just saying,
>>>
>>> That does have some attractive properties, now that you mention it. ;-)
>>
>> Which property? Stupid or Silly ;-)
>
> As with any piece of software, no matter how small, both. ;-)
>
> Of course, __register_cpu_notifier() would need lockdep checking to make
> sure that it wasn't called without the benefit of cpu_maps_update_begin().
Not with my approach ;-) Its all automatically handled :-)
> I might be missing something, but as long as that was in place, seems
> like it is a lot simpler and easier to use than the alternatives that
> Srivatsa and I were kicking around.
>
Hehe :-) Thanks for simplifying things, Steve!
[1]. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/1/39
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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