From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (e23smtp01.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e23smtp01.au.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 022672C029F for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:01:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 05:55:57 +1000 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C572CE804D for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:01:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r1AJmxp264422032 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 06:48:59 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r1AK1FDs028813 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:01:16 +1100 Message-ID: <5117FC13.1030002@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:29:15 +0530 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/45] smp, cpu hotplug: Fix smp_call_function_*() to prevent CPU offline properly References: <20130122073210.13822.50434.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20130122073508.13822.12784.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20130209000717.GP2666@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <5117F7E9.7070906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130210195639.GL2666@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20130210195639.GL2666@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, fweisbec@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, rostedt@goodmis.org, rjw@sisk.pl, namhyung@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, oleg@redhat.com, sbw@mit.edu, tj@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 02/11/2013 01:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:11:29AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> On 02/09/2013 05:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:05:10PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to >>>> depend on preempt_disable() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us. >>>> >>>> Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline, >>>> while invoking from atomic context. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat >>> >>> Would it make sense for get_online_cpus_atomic() to return the current >>> CPU number? >> >> Hmm, I'm not so sure. I tried to model it after get_online_cpus(), which doesn't >> return anything (for other reasons, of course..) >> >> Moreover, a function name like *_cpu_* returning the CPU number would be intuitive. >> But a name such as *_cpus_* (plural) returning a CPU number might appear confusing.. >> >> And also I don't think it'll make a huge improvement in the callers.. (We might >> be better off avoiding an smp_processor_id() if possible, since this function could >> be called in very hot paths).. So I don't see a strong case for returning the >> CPU number. But let me know if you think it'll still be worth it for some reason... > > I just noted a lot of two-line code sequences in your patch that would be > one line if the CPU number was returned. Ah, in that case, I'll reconsider your suggestion while working on the next version. Thanks! Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat > But I don't feel strongly about > it, so if people are OK with the current version, no problem. > > Thanx, Paul >