Re: [PATCH] hotplug: Optimize {get,put}_online_cpus()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 10/01, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 10:41:15PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> > However, as Oleg said, its definitely worth considering whether this proposed
> > change in semantics is going to hurt us in the future. CPU_POST_DEAD has certainly
> > proved to be very useful in certain challenging situations (commit 1aee40ac9c
> > explains one such example), so IMHO we should be very careful not to undermine
> > its utility.
>
> Urgh.. crazy things. I've always understood POST_DEAD to mean 'will be
> called at some time after the unplug' with no further guarantees. And my
> patch preserves that.

I tend to agree with Srivatsa... Without a strong reason it would be better
to preserve the current logic: "some time after" should not be after the
next CPU_DOWN/UP*. But I won't argue too much.

But note that you do not strictly need this change. Just kill cpuhp_waitcount,
then we can change cpu_hotplug_begin/end to use xxx_enter/exit we discuss in
another thread, this should likely "join" all synchronize_sched's.

Or split cpu_hotplug_begin() into 2 helpers which handle FAST -> SLOW and
SLOW -> BLOCK transitions, then move the first "FAST -> SLOW" handler outside
of for_each_online_cpu().

Oleg.

--
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/