On 27/03/2019 17:51, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Wed, 2019-03-27 at 17:31 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 27/03/2019 17:24, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 14:11 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> cpu_disable_scheduler() is being called from __cpu_disable() >>>> today. >>>> There is no need to call it on the cpu just being disabled, so >>>> use >>>> the CPU_DEAD case of the cpu notifier chain. >>>> >>> So, what do you mean with "There is no need to call it on the cpu >>> just >>> being disabled"? >>> >>> Because we still (even after this patch, I mean) call >>> cpu_disable_scheduler() on all non-boot CPUs, aren't we? It's just >>> that >>> right now we call it from __cpu_disable(), with the patch we call >>> it >>> slightly later. >> >> The CPU_DEAD notifier chain is called on the CPU requesting the other >> one to go down (so on the boot CPU in suspend case). So we call it >> _for_ >> all non-boot CPUs in the boot CPU. >> > Mmm... ok, I see what you mean now. > > I guess part of "the problem" is that "call func on cpu A" reads, at > least to me, as both 1) call func so that it acts on and change the > state of cpu A, and 2) call func in such a way that it executes on cpu > A.
I'll rephrase to "execute func on cpu...". Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
