[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121209194826.GB2816@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 20:48:26 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, tj@...nel.org, sbw@....edu,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 7/9] yield_to(), cpu-hotplug: Prevent offlining
of other CPUs properly
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
> depend on local_irq_save() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
OK, I guess we need to avoid resched_task()->smp_send_reschedule()
after __cpu_disable() and before migrate_tasks().
But, whatever problem we have,
> Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline,
> while invoking from atomic context.
it should be solved, so...
> - if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
> + if (preempt && rq != p_rq && cpu_online(task_cpu(p)))
Why do we need this change?
Afaics, you could add BUG_ON(!cpu_online(...)) instead?
I am just curious.
Oleg.
--
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