From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <4E2FA002.2020302@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:20:02 +0900
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] proc/insterrupts: make it cpu hotplug safe
References: <20110726163424.GC2576@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1311742583-18633-1-git-send-email-yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1311742583-18633-1-git-send-email-yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Archive: <https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: yong.zhang0@gmail.com
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, kobayashi.kk@ncos.nec.co.jp, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com
List-ID: <linux-s390.vger.kernel.org>

(2011/07/27 13:56), Yong Zhang wrote:
> KOSAKI Motonhiro noticed that the reader of /proc/interrupts
> could be preempted by cpu hotplug, thus the reader can get
> broken result due to show_interrupts() iterate every online
> cpu without any protection.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Keika Kobayashi <kobayashi.kk@ncos.nec.co.jp>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Cc: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>

Looks good. but I have a question. On last thread, kobayashi-san
suggested to use for_each_possible_cpu() and you wrote "+1".

>> At that time, I suggested to change
>> from for_each_online_cpu() to for_each_possible_cpu(),
>> in /proc/interrupts.
>+1
>Thus we could also avoid the issue pointed by KOSAKI Motonhiro.

Why do you decide to use another way?