[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0bf78a2-8bba-825e-89de-d41568ae2793@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:34:05 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Joel Savitz <jsavitz@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Yuan ZhaoXiong <yuanzhaoxiong@...du.com>,
Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <dhildenb@...hat.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kernel/cpu: restart cpu_up when hotplug is disabled
On 21.04.22 16:31, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> It's far from perfect I would say, but we really wanted to avoid
>>> letting user space having to deal with retry logic.
>>
>> What's so hard with retry logic in user space?
>>
>> If you can come up with a reasonable argument why user space cannot be
>> fixed, then there is certainly a better solution than slapping a
>> msleep(5) at some random place into the code.
> Most probably you're right and we should just retry in udev. Staring at
> the history, it looks like the -EBUSY might have been returned forever,
> so user space just never really triggered it on actual CPU hotplug
> because it doesn't usually happen that cpu hotplug is disabled.
The last part was confusing: "on actual CPU hotplug because it doesn't
usually happen that cpu hotplug is disabled when onlining a CPU that was
just hotplugged."
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists