[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160405081107.GH3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 10:11:07 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
mingo@...hat.com, Douglas_Warzecha@...l.com, pali.rohar@...il.com,
jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, jeremy@...p.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
akataria@...are.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] smp: add function to execute a function
synchronously on a cpu
On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:04AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> +int smp_call_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, bool pin, int (*func)(void *), void *par)
Why .pin and not .phys? .pin does not (to me) reflect the
hypervisor/physical-cpu thing.
Also, as per smp_call_function_single() would it not be more consistent
to make this the last argument?
> +{
> + struct smp_call_on_cpu_struct sscs = {
> + .work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(sscs.work, smp_call_on_cpu_callback),
> + .done = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(sscs.done),
> + .func = func,
> + .data = par,
> + .cpu = pin ? cpu : -1,
> + };
> +
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
You might want to also include cpu_online().
if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu))
> + return -ENXIO;
Seeing how its fairly hard to schedule work on a cpu that's not actually
there.
> +
> + queue_work_on(cpu, system_wq, &sscs.work);
> + wait_for_completion(&sscs.done);
> +
> + return sscs.ret;
> +}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists