Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:14:04 -0700 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> i've queued up the fix below in tip/sched/urgent. >> >> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c >> index e202a68..c977c33 100644 >> --- a/kernel/cpu.c >> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c >> @@ -349,6 +349,8 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen) >> goto out_notify; >> BUG_ON(!cpu_online(cpu)); >> >> + cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map); >> + >> /* Now call notifier in preparation. */ >> raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_ONLINE | mod, hcpu); >> >> @@ -383,9 +385,6 @@ int __cpuinit cpu_up(unsigned int cpu) >> >> err = _cpu_up(cpu, 0); >> >> - if (cpu_online(cpu)) >> - cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map); >> - > > Ok, not only does that fix the bug, but it simplifies the code and looks > obviously ok. However, I don't have it in my tree yet, and I'd like to do > an -rc3 that has this fixes (so that along with the PCI MSI thing, we > hopefully have most of the suspend/resume regressions fixed). I actually thought it's somewhat against the original idea. It seems that we'd be setting 'active' be a little too early. ie before all the hotplug handlers had a chance to realize that cpu is now online. I don't have a strong objection though.
> And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for the > appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take these as > patches? It'd be nice if -rc3 included my cpuset patch so that we could put circular locking issues in the cpu hotplug path to the rest. Ingo, I'm talking about this: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling (take 4)
Max
Max
| |