[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55257F9C.3050105@ezchip.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 15:21:00 -0400
From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
chai wen <chaiw.fnst@...fujitsu.com>,
Ulrich Obergfell <uobergfe@...hat.com>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Ben Zhang <benzh@...omium.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] watchdog: add watchdog_exclude sysctl to assist
nohz
On 04/08/2015 10:01 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> How about creating smpboot_update_mask_percpu_thread() and handle it from smpboot,
> this way future evolutions of smpboot won't overlook this cpumask live change?
It seemed like your proposed approach was actually a bit heavier-weight
from the perspective of generic smp_hotplug_thread, so instead I just
modified the proposed API to have a simple "valid_cpu()" callback,
which I think is clear and won't be damaged by smpboot evolution.
Let me know what you think.
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
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