[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140520102542.GW2485@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:25:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...nel.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, hch@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
riel@...hat.com, bp@...e.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mgalbraith@...e.de, ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 UPDATEDv3 3/3] CPU hotplug, smp: Flush any pending IPI
callbacks before CPU offline
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 03:39:59PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > The multi_cpu_stop() path isn't exclusive to hotplug, so your changelog
> > is wrong or the patch is.
> >
>
> Yes, I know that multi_cpu_stop() isn't exclusive to hotplug. That's why
> I have explicitly referred to CPU hotplug in the comment as well as the
> changelog.
>
> But I totally agree that code-wise this is not the best way to do it since
> this affects (although harmlessly) usecases other than hotplug as well.
>
> Do you have any other suggestions?
How about making a kernel/smp.c hotplug notifier and stuffing it in the
CPU_DYING list? That's typically after we've already torn down the
interrupts for that cpu, so no chance of any new ones coming in.
Or is that too late?
--
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