[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CPU Hotplug rework
    On 04/11/2012 06:30 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

    > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:37:18PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    >> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 17:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    >>>> Just to throw out the stupid silly approach.
    >>>> What about creating a "__register_cpu_notifier()" that just does:
    >>>> int __ref __register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
    >>>> {
    >>>> return raw_notifier_chain_register(&cpu_chain, nb);
    >>>> }
    >>>> Also making cpu_maps_update_begin/done() global (and probably rename
    >>>> them).
    >> I just noticed that the cpu_maps_update_begin/done() are already global.
    >>>> and then in the above code do:
    >>>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
    >>>> __register_cpu_notifier(nb);
    >>>> do_setup();
    >>>> cpu_maps_update_done();

    Wow! Believe it or not, this is precisely the crux of the approach I was
    suggesting all along!! :-) Just that when put to code, it looked slightly
    different than this.. Sorry for not being clear.

    So here is what I proposed, in a simplified form:

    Modify the existing register_cpu_notifier() to this (by possibly giving
    it a different name):

    int __ref register_cpu_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb,
    int (*do_setup)(void))
    int ret;

    ret = raw_notifier_chain_register(&cpu_chain, nb);

    return ret;

    and then, in the caller, do:

    register_cpu_notifier(nb, do_setup);

    If the caller doesn't need any such extra setup, just do:

    register_cpu_notifier(nb, NULL);

    Of course, register_cpu_notifier() should handle NULL properly.
    (My patch [1] handles it, along with some other special cases.)

    That's it!

    Also, it is to be noted that cpu_maps_update_begin/done() are global, but
    not exported symbols - so modules can't use them. With the above approach,
    we need not make them exported symbols, since the caller need not care about
    these locks at all.

    >>>> Just saying,
    >>> That does have some attractive properties, now that you mention it. ;-)
    >> Which property? Stupid or Silly ;-)
    > As with any piece of software, no matter how small, both. ;-)
    > Of course, __register_cpu_notifier() would need lockdep checking to make
    > sure that it wasn't called without the benefit of cpu_maps_update_begin().

    Not with my approach ;-) Its all automatically handled :-)

    > I might be missing something, but as long as that was in place, seems
    > like it is a lot simpler and easier to use than the alternatives that
    > Srivatsa and I were kicking around.

    Hehe :-) Thanks for simplifying things, Steve!


    Srivatsa S. Bhat

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-11 08:05    [W:0.024 / U:1.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site