Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Aug 11 2008 - 18:04:30 EST




On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i've queued up the fix below in tip/sched/urgent.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index e202a68..c977c33 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -349,6 +349,8 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
> goto out_notify;
> BUG_ON(!cpu_online(cpu));
>
> + cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> +
> /* Now call notifier in preparation. */
> raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_ONLINE | mod, hcpu);
>
> @@ -383,9 +385,6 @@ int __cpuinit cpu_up(unsigned int cpu)
>
> err = _cpu_up(cpu, 0);
>
> - if (cpu_online(cpu))
> - cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> -

Ok, not only does that fix the bug, but it simplifies the code and looks
obviously ok. However, I don't have it in my tree yet, and I'd like to do
an -rc3 that has this fixes (so that along with the PCI MSI thing, we
hopefully have most of the suspend/resume regressions fixed).

And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for the
appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take these as
patches?

Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/