Re: [PATCH 1/3] jump_label: Pull get_online_cpus() into generic code

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:08:26PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 06:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -146,6 +154,7 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct
> >  	 * returns is unbalanced, because all other static_key_slow_inc()
> >  	 * instances block while the update is in progress.
> >  	 */
> > +	get_online_cpus();
> >  	if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex)) {
> >  		WARN(atomic_read(&key->enabled) < 0,
> >  		     "jump label: negative count!\n");
> 
> So the get and put can be unbalanced here since the above:
> 
> 'if (!atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock(&key->enabled, &jump_label_mutex))'
> 
> is followed by 'return;'. However, I see that the next patch removes this
> and so things are balanced again...

Duh.. right you are.

> > @@ -159,6 +168,7 @@ static void __static_key_slow_dec(struct
> >  		jump_label_update(key);
> >  	}
> >  	jump_label_unlock();
> > +	put_online_cpus();
> >  }
> > 
> >  static void jump_label_update_timeout(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -592,6 +602,10 @@ jump_label_module_notify(struct notifier
> > 
> >  	switch (val) {
> >  	case MODULE_STATE_COMING:
> > +		/*
> > +		 * XXX do we need get_online_cpus() ?  the module isn't
> > +		 * executable yet, so nothing should be looking at our code.
> > +		 */
> 
> Since we're just updating the table of places we potentially need to patch,
> but not actually doing any patching, we should not need get_online_cpus()
> here...so in attempt to reduce confusion I would remove this.

Thanks for confirming it is indeed not required. Will make it go away.