![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ashok Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:45:50PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote: > > On 1/4/06, Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com> wrote: > > > This is where things go wrong -- any_online_cpu() now gets 1, not 0. > > > In queue_work, the cpu_workqueue_struct at per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, 1) is > > > uninitialized. > > > > Same issue on ia64 when I tried to add Ashok' s patch to allow > > removal of cpu0 (BSP in ia64-speak). Ashok told me that this fix > > solves the problem for us too. > > > > Is this safe to use in NUMA path as well? Not that memory hot-remove is there > yet today, but if a NUMA node is being removed, i would assume the memory for > that node goes with it. i.e assuming alloc_percpu() gets node local memory for > each cpu. I guess I don't understand your concern here -- the workqueue patch doesn't introduce any potential difficulty with memory or node removal that alloc_percpu didn't already have. > So is it safe to continue to reference an area of an offline cpu that may not > exist? Yes. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-01-05 23:18 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||