[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140731075234.GA26585@gchen.bj.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 03:52:34 -0400
From: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
paulus@...ba.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
hpa@...or.com, jkosina@...e.cz, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, davem@...emloft.net,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, fweisbec@...il.com, cl@...ux.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
JBottomley@...allels.com, neilb@...e.de,
christoffer.dall@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rric@...nel.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, mhocko@...e.cz, david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:48:52 +0200
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
> paulus@...ba.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, tony.luck@...el.com,
> hpa@...or.com, jkosina@...e.cz, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
> linux@....linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
> davem@...emloft.net, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, fweisbec@...il.com,
> cl@...ux.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
> JBottomley@...allels.com, neilb@...e.de, christoffer.dall@...aro.org,
> rostedt@...dmis.org, rric@...nel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
> mhocko@...e.cz, david@...morbit.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
> Well, look at the original code. What do you think happens if another
> _FROZEN action comes in which we don't handle in the switch-case?
>
> Take a piece of paper and play it through slowly if you don't see it.
> Hint: err = 0.
>
> > It looks like not quite comply with original logic. Once
> > new FROZEN logic is added, we have to update this code again. How
> > about using following code snippet:
> >
> > + if ((action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) &&
> > + ((action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) == CPU_UP_CANCELED)) {
> > + __update_clusterinfo(this_cpu);
> > + return NOTIFY_OK;
>
> No, this is different now from the original logic.
>
I'm silly. You are right. I will use your patch directly(I should do
it at the beginning :-)).
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists