On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 02:16:09PM -0400, Chris Metcalf wrote: > On 04/02/2015 02:06 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 01:39:28PM -0400, cmetc...@ezchip.com wrote: > >>@@ -431,6 +434,10 @@ static void watchdog_enable(unsigned int cpu) > >> hrtimer_init(hrtimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL); > >> hrtimer->function = watchdog_timer_fn; > >>+ /* Exit if the cpu is not allowed for watchdog. */ > >>+ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, watchdog_mask)) > >>+ do_exit(0); > >>+ > >Ick, that doesn't look right for smpboot threads. > > I didn't see a better way to make this happen without adding > a bunch of infrastructure to the smpboot thread mechanism > to use a cpumask other than for_each_online_cpu(). The exit > seems benign in my testing, but I agree it's not the cleanest > way to express what we're trying to do here. > > Perhaps something like an optional cpumask_t pointer in > struct smp_hotplug_thread, which if present specifies the > cpus to run on, and otherwise we stick with cpu_online_mask?
What's wrong with just leaving the thread be but making sure it'll never actually do anything? -- 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/
