[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131019180239.1e318628@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 18:02:39 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: allow to call text_poke_bp during boot
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:33:50 -0700
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > It's used to convert the calls to mcount to nops. But maybe a better
> > > thing to do is to check if we only have a single CPU:
> > >
> > > static void run_sync(void)
> > > {
> > > if (num_online_cpus() != 1)
> >
> > Hmm, to be more robust to handle our future "ideal" machines, perhaps
> > this should be:
> >
> > /* Ideally we would like to run on zero CPUS! */
> > if (num_online_cpus() < 2)
>
Bah! And for such a simple computation, I got it wrong.
/* Ideally we would like to run on zero CPUS! */
if (num_online_cpus > 1)
But I guess the question comes. If we are running on zero CPUS, should
we perform the "on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);" or not? Same goes
with 5i-3 CPUS, or negative number CPUs. If we need to do on_each_cpu(),
then I guess the != 1 will suffice.
-- Steve
--
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