[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D98FE55B-C379-4C24-B4DD-4E02A1E2AB79@joelfernandes.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 06:12:35 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Z qiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Traverse possible cpu to set maxcpu in rcu_nocb_toggle()
> On Aug 29, 2023, at 5:24 AM, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 05:51:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> I think the issue is the loop later in the function does
>> not try to toggle cpus that came online too late.
>>
>> So it does not test offloading on all CPUs just because max got updated too
>> late.
>
> Right, and therefore for_each_possible_cpu() or for_each_present_cpu()
> should be fine to iterate since it's ok to try to toggle an offline CPU.
Ah I see what you mean, sounds good.
>
>>
>> One fix could be to periodically check in the loop if a new cpu at maxcpu + 1
>> ever got onlined. If it did, update the maxcpu.
>
> Is it worth the complication though?
Probably not and so your suggestion sounds fine.
Thanks!
- Joel
>
> Thanks.
>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists