Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:55:18 +0900 | From | KOSAKI Motohiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] proc/insterrupts: make it cpu hotplug safe |
| |
(2011/07/27 14:47), Yong Zhang wrote: > 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 :)
Fair enough. thanks.
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
| |