On 12/10/2012 02:10 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
- if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
+ if (preempt && rq != p_rq && cpu_online(task_cpu(p)))
>>>
>>> Why do we need this change?
>>>
>>> Afaics,
On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> - if (preempt && rq != p_rq)
> >> + if (preempt && rq != p_rq && cpu_online(task_cpu(p)))
> >
> > Why do we need this change?
> >
> > Afaics, you could add BUG_ON(!cpu_online(...)) instead?
>
On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>
>> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
>> depend on local_irq_save() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
>
> OK, I guess we need to avoid
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
> depend on local_irq_save() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
OK, I guess we need to avoid resched_task()->smp_send_reschedule()
after __cpu_disable() and before
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
depend on local_irq_save() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
OK, I guess we need to avoid resched_task()-smp_send_reschedule()
after __cpu_disable() and before
On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/07, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
depend on local_irq_save() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
OK, I guess we need to avoid
On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
- if (preempt rq != p_rq)
+ if (preempt rq != p_rq cpu_online(task_cpu(p)))
Why do we need this change?
Afaics, you could add BUG_ON(!cpu_online(...)) instead?
I am just curious.
On 12/10/2012 02:10 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
- if (preempt rq != p_rq)
+ if (preempt rq != p_rq cpu_online(task_cpu(p)))
Why do we need this change?
Afaics, you could add
Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
depend on local_irq_save() 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.
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S.
Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
depend on local_irq_save() 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.
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S.
10 matches
Mail list logo