[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1407291057410.21390@gentwo.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 10:59:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, hughd@...gle.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...nel.org,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: vmstat: On demand vmstat workers V8
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > Index: linux/mm/vmstat.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/vmstat.c 2014-07-29 10:22:45.073884943 -0500
> > +++ linux/mm/vmstat.c 2014-07-29 10:34:45.083369228 -0500
> > @@ -1277,8 +1277,8 @@ static int vmstat_cpuup_callback(struct
> > break;
> > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
> > - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
> > per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;
> > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
> > break;
> > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> > case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN:
> >
>
> I'm slightly confused here. The on demand vmstat workers patch did this:
>
> case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE_FROZEN:
> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
> - per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu).work.func = NULL;
> + if (!cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(cpu, cpu_stat_off))
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&per_cpu(vmstat_work, cpu));
>
> So your new patch doesn't apply on top of it, and doesn't make sense before it.
Tejun was looking at upsteram and so I fixed upstream ;-)
Is it really necessary to set the work.func to NULL? If so then the
work.func will have to be initialized when a processor is brought online.
Canceling the work should be enough to disable the execution of the
function.
--
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