On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:20:20PM +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote: > >> You mean using sd == NULL rather than using update_cache_domain variable ? > > Yes, note how: > > @@ -6109,7 +6110,7 @@ static void detach_destroy_domains(const struct cpumask > *cpu_map) > > rcu_read_lock(); > for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) > - cpu_attach_domain(NULL, &def_root_domain, i); > rcu_read_unlock(); > } > > Always has NULL for sd? Which means you can do: > > @@ -5138,7 +5138,8 @@ cpu_attach_domain(struct sched_domain *sd, struct > root_domain *rd, int cpu) > rcu_assign_pointer(rq->sd, sd); > destroy_sched_domains(tmp, cpu); > > - update_top_cache_domain(cpu); > + if (sd) > + update_top_cache_domain(cpu); > } > > /* cpus with isolated domains */
Okay, got it. Will submit an updated patch! Thanks Rakib. -- 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/
