On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 07:12:59PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able
> to depend on disabling preemption to prevent CPUs from going offline
> from under us.
>
> Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs to prevent CPUs from going
> offline, while invoking from atomic context.
>
> Cc: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
...
> @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> s64 ret;
> int cpu;
>
> + get_online_cpus_atomic();
> raw_spin_lock(&fbc->lock);
> ret = fbc->count;
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> @@ -105,6 +106,7 @@ s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
> ret += *pcount;
> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&fbc->lock);
> + put_online_cpus_atomic();
I don't think this is necessary. CPU on/offlining is explicitly
handled via the hotplug callback which synchronizes through fbc->lock.
__percpu_counter_sum() racing with actual on/offlining doesn't affect
correctness and adding superflous get_online_cpus_atomic() around it
can be misleading.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
