On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:33:45AM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > On 02/16/2015 05:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >> From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > >> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static int __ref _cpu_down(unsigned int > >> __cpu_die(cpu); > >> > >> /* CPU is completely dead: tell everyone. Too late to complain. */ > >>- tick_cleanup_dead_cpu(cpu); > >>+ tick_takeover(cpu); > > Why is tick_handover() called after __cpu_die()?
See: [PATCH 11/35] clockevents: Cleanup dead cpu explicitely it used to be a CPU_DEAD notifier. But, I think, the actual reason would be that you cannot be sure its not still ticking until its actually proper dead and buried, so trying to take over a tick from a cpu that's still ticking is... well, suspect. > And the function tick_takeover() > is not introduced until the next patch. tick_broadcast_takeover_bc() is the > function used instead in this patch. Indeed so; let me correct that for bisection's sake. -- 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/
