Shivang Upadhyay <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, 2026-09-23 at 10:05 -0300, Fabiano Rosas wrote: >> >> @Shivang, we're discussing about cpu_remove_sync() down in this >> thread, >> maybe that's of interest to you. Philippe is suggesting we could >> maybe >> move the call up a layer. > > Hi Fabiano, > I checked the dummp_cpu way to working, I can see you changes makes > sense here. I couldn't understand much from Philippe's suggestion. Do > we want to handle the case for thread waiting on sigwait, inside > cpu_remove_sync ? >
The point was simply to call cpu_remove_sync() from another spot. I think he made the same suggestion to you here: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] While researching what would it take to do it, I got concerned about the effects that setting cpu->unplug could have for targets that currently do not set it, but nonetheless use it as the cpu loop exit condition. That question is still open, I haven't got time to look deeper into it yet. If you're interested in that area, you could give it a try. As I mentioned in the other email, the unplug logic was added back then to improve the usability of spapr cpu hot-unplug so it could be pertinent to anyone working on ppc.
