Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpumask: Introduce DYING mask

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 07:30:37PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 03/10/21 15:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ static int cpuhp_invoke_callback(unsigne
> >  	int (*cb)(unsigned int cpu);
> >  	int ret, cnt;
> >  
> > +	if (bringup != !cpu_dying(cpu))
> 
> nit: this condition is hard to read
> 
> > +		set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup);

How's:

	if (cpu_dying(cpu) != !bringup)
		set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup);

> since cpu_dying() will do cpumask_test_cpu(), are we saving  much if we
> unconditionally call set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup) which performs
> cpumask_{set, clear}_cpu()?

This is hotplug, it's all slow, endlessly rewriting that bit shouldn't
be a problem I suppose.