Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:47:15 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] proc/insterrupts: make it cpu hotplug safe | From | Yong Zhang <> |
| |
2011/7/27 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>: > (2011/07/27 13:56), Yong Zhang wrote: >> KOSAKI Motonhiro noticed that the reader of /proc/interrupts >> could be preempted by cpu hotplug, thus the reader can get >> broken result due to show_interrupts() iterate every online >> cpu without any protection. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> >> Cc: Keika Kobayashi <kobayashi.kk@ncos.nec.co.jp> >> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> >> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> > > Looks good. but I have a question. On last thread, kobayashi-san > suggested to use for_each_possible_cpu() and you wrote "+1".
Yeah, for_each_possible_cpu() will make code more cleaner. so I give it my support.
> >>> At that time, I suggested to change >>> from for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu(), >>> in /proc/interrupts. >>+1 >>Thus we could also avoid the issue pointed by KOSAKI Motonhiro. > > Why do you decide to use another way?
But, as kobayashi-san has also said: In conclusion, we decided to remain /proc/interrupts. because it had been the way for a long time.
So I don't want to raise an argument again :)
Thanks, Yong
-- Only stand for myself
| |