Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup

[Chen, Gong]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:48:52AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:48:52 +0200
> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>  paulus@xxxxxxxxx, benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx,
>  hpa@xxxxxxxxx, jkosina@xxxxxxx, rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx,
>  linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx,
>  davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx,
>  cl@xxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, axboe@xxxxxxxxx,
>  JBottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, neilb@xxxxxxx, christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx,
>  rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, rric@xxxxxxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>  mhocko@xxxxxxx, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 13/70] x86, x2apic_cluster: _FROZEN Cleanup
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
> Well, look at the original code. What do you think happens if another
> _FROZEN action comes in which we don't handle in the switch-case?
> 
> Take a piece of paper and play it through slowly if you don't see it.
> Hint: err = 0.
> 
> > It looks like not quite comply with original logic. Once
> > new FROZEN logic is added, we have to update this code again. How
> > about using following code snippet:
> > 
> > +       if ((action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) &&
> > +           ((action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) == CPU_UP_CANCELED)) {
> > +               __update_clusterinfo(this_cpu);
> > +               return NOTIFY_OK;
> 
> No, this is different now from the original logic.
> 
I'm silly. You are right. I will use your patch directly(I should do
it at the beginning :-)).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature