[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131002121625.GB21581@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:16:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, tony.luck@...el.com,
bp@...en8.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
On 10/01, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 08:07:50PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:45:08PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I tend to agree with Srivatsa... Without a strong reason it would be better
> > > > to preserve the current logic: "some time after" should not be after the
> > > > next CPU_DOWN/UP*. But I won't argue too much.
> > >
> > > Nah, I think breaking it is the right thing :-)
> >
> > I don't really agree but I won't argue ;)
>
> The authors of arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c would seem to be the
> guys who would need to complain, given that they seem to have the only
> use in 3.11.
mce_cpu_callback() is fine, it ignores POST_DEAD if CPU_TASKS_FROZEN.
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