lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()
Date
On Saturday, September 28, 2013 06:31:04 PM Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 02:48:59PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > Please note that this wait_event() adds a problem... it doesn't allow
> > > to "offload" the final synchronize_sched(). Suppose a 4k cpu machine
> > > does disable_nonboot_cpus(), we do not want 2 * 4k * synchronize_sched's
> > > in this case. We can solve this, but this wait_event() complicates
> > > the problem.
> >
> > That seems like a particularly easy fix; something like so?
>
> Yes, but...
>
> > @@ -586,6 +603,11 @@ int disable_nonboot_cpus(void)
> >
> > + cpu_hotplug_done();
> > +
> > + for_each_cpu(cpu, frozen_cpus)
> > + cpu_notify_nofail(CPU_POST_DEAD_FROZEN, (void*)(long)cpu);
>
> This changes the protocol, I simply do not know if it is fine in general
> to do __cpu_down(another_cpu) without CPU_POST_DEAD(previous_cpu). Say,
> currently it is possible that CPU_DOWN_PREPARE takes some global lock
> released by CPU_DOWN_FAILED or CPU_POST_DEAD.
>
> Hmm. Now that workqueues do not use CPU_POST_DEAD, it has only 2 users,
> mce_cpu_callback() and cpufreq_cpu_callback() and the 1st one even ignores
> this notification if FROZEN. So yes, probably this is fine, but needs an
> ack from cpufreq maintainers (cc'ed), for example to ensure that it is
> fine to call __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() twice without _finish().

To my eyes it will return -EBUSY when it tries to stop an already stopped
governor, which will cause the entire chain to fail I guess.

Srivatsa has touched that code most recently, so he should know better, though.

Thanks,
Rafael



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-30 22:41    [W:0.434 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site