[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50C55F6A.4040909@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:34:58 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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 12/10/2012 02:10 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>> - 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.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I think that's a remnant of v1 (which needed readers to use
>> cpu_online_stable()). You're right, we don't need it.
>
> Ah OK, thanks.
>
>> Or we could put a
>> BUG_ON instead, like you suggested.
>
> IMHO it would be better to simply drop this chunk.
>
Sure, will drop it. Its distracting, if nothing else ;-)
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