[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YAMFxk311hkpQYl3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:27:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, cai@...hat.com,
vincent.donnefort@....com, decui@...rosoft.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] sched: Dont run cpu-online with balance_push()
enabled
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:30:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -7608,6 +7614,12 @@ int sched_cpu_dying(unsigned int cpu)
> }
> rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, &rf);
>
> + /*
> + * Should really be after we clear cpu_online(), but we're in
> + * stop_machine(), so it all works.
> + */
> + balance_push_set(cpu, false);
Looking at the RCU thing just now made me realize we run all the DYING
notifiers with cpu_online() already false, so the above comment is wrong
and ordering in fact perfect.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists