Re: current linux-2.6.git: cpusets completely broken

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So instead of this illogical and crazy mess:
> >
> >        +       switch (phase) {
> >        +       case CPU_UP_CANCELED:
> >        +       case CPU_UP_CANCELED_FROZEN:
> >        +       case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> >        +       case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN:
> >        +       case CPU_ONLINE:
> >        +       case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
> >        +       case CPU_DEAD:
> >        +       case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
> >        +               common_cpu_mem_hotplug_unplug(1);
> >
> > it should just say
> >
> >        +       switch (phase) {
> >        +       case CPU_ONLINE:
> >        +       case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
> >        +       case CPU_DEAD:
> >        +       case CPU_DEAD_FROZEN:
> >        +               common_cpu_mem_hotplug_unplug(1);
> >
> > because it only makes sense to rebuild the scheduler domains when the
> > thing SUCCEEDS.
> >
> > See? By having a sane design, the code is not just more robust and 
> > easy to follow, you can also simplify it and make it more logical.
> 
> Yes, I agree. And I did _not_ say that the current design is sane. My 
> impression about changes acceptable during a late release cycle was 
> utterly CRAPPY (indeed, it's always better to immediately fix a 
> problem the right way, not just add another patch and pray it doesn't 
> break somewhere else).

mind sending Linus's patch as a completed patchset against tip/master 
(or tip/sched/devel) so that we can do it in early v2.6.27?

i still think your cpusets.c fix is what we should do for v2.6.26, given 
that there's agreement about how to fix it for real and thus in terms of 
regression/bug risk your patch is lower-impact and CPU hotplug has been 
broken for such a long time.

But we should follow it up with Linus's patch immediately afterwards in 
v2.6.27. Hm?

	Ingo