Re: Fw: 2.6.16 crashes when running numastat on p575

[Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>]

Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> 
> > In this case, disabling preempt around the for_each_online_cpu loop
> > would prevent any cpu from going down in the meantime.  But since this
> > function doesn't look like it's a hot path, and we're potentially
> > traversing lots of zones and cpus, lock_cpu_hotplug might be preferable.
> > 
> > As Paul noted, the fix as it stands isn't adequate.
> 
> There are many other for_each_*_cpu loops in the kernel that do not have 
> any of the instrumentation you suggest. I suggest you come up with a 
> general solution and then go through all of them and fix this. Please be 
> aware that many of these loops are performance critical.

But this one isn't, right?

And I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here -- only
for_each_online_cpu (or accessing the cpu online map in general) has
such restrictions -- for_each_possible_cpu doesn't require any locking
or preempt tricks since cpu_possible_map must not change after boot.