[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140522121328.GI4383@pd.tnic>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 14:13:28 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel_rapl: Correct hotplug correction
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:24:33PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> That was just me trying to explain the current mess, not justifying
> it! :-/
Yes, it is a mess - thanks for explaining it.
> I think Oleg had a proposed patch to use per-cpu rwsem in CPU hotplug to
> drastically simplify this whole locking scheme. I think we could look at
> that again.
And that is my question: why can't all be made to use a single dumb lock
allowing only one task and lock everything hotplug with it?
Maybe it is an oversimplification but why do I care about hotplug
operations scaling - they're not on the fastpath anyway.
And yes, we're trying to remove CPU_POST_DEAD - I have one user in
MCE which I'm testing a removal patch for - and then we can all use
get_/put_online_cpus() like we used to do and be happy.
Having 2 + 1 aliased hotplug sync APIs is beyond insane and is simply
not needed IMHO.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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