[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: get/put_online_cpus documentation wrong?
On 05/01/2012 04:56 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:

> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Paul Mackerras <> wrote:
>> In Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt it says:
>> " #include <linux/cpu.h>
>> get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus():
>> The above calls are used to inhibit cpu hotplug operations. While the
>> cpu_hotplug.refcount is non zero, the cpu_online_mask will not change.
>> If you merely need to avoid cpus going away, you could also use
>> preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() for those sections.
>> Just remember the critical section cannot call any
>> function that can sleep or schedule this process away."
> I *think* the critical section remark here is referring to using
> preempt_disable/enable(),
> rather then the use of get/put_online_cpus().

Yes, what Gilad said is right.

Using preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() around a piece of code is a
light-weight way of preventing CPUs from going away (CPUs going offline)
while executing that code. (However, they don't prevent new CPUs from
coming online). So, if you are using preempt_disable|enable() to
prevent some CPU from going offline, then the usual rules for using
preempt_disable|enable() apply - that code should not sleep.

But if you want to avoid CPU hotplug entirely (both CPU offlining and
onlining), then you should use get/put_online_cpus(). You can use this
around any piece of code, including those which can sleep.

Srivatsa S. Bhat
IBM Linux Technology Center

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-01 16:21    [W:0.048 / U:2.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site