lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] keep rd->online and cpu_online_map in sync
Date
On Monday, 10 of March 2008, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:34AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > keep rd->online and cpu_online_map in sync
> >
> > It is possible to allow the root-domain cache of online cpus to
> > become out of sync with the global cpu_online_map. This is because we
> > currently trigger removal of cpus too early in the notifier chain.
> > Other DOWN_PREPARE handlers may in fact run and reconfigure the
> > root-domain topology, thereby stomping on our own offline handling.
> >
> > The end result is that rd->online may become out of sync with
> > cpu_online_map, which results in potential task misrouting.
> >
> > So change the offline handling to be more tightly coupled with the
> > global offline process by triggering on CPU_DYING intead of
> > CPU_DOWN_PREPARE.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
> > ---
> >
> > kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> > index 52b9867..a616fa1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> > @@ -5881,7 +5881,7 @@ migration_call(struct notifier_block *nfb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> > spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
> > break;
> >
> > - case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> > + case CPU_DYING:
>
> Don't we need to take care of CPU_DYING_FROZEN aswell?

Well, I'd say we do.

> > /* Update our root-domain */
> > rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
> >


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-10 23:07    [W:0.070 / U:30.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site