Re: Regression in 2.6.27-rc1 for set_cpus_allowed_ptr

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > i've queued up the fix below in tip/sched/urgent.
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index e202a68..c977c33 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -349,6 +349,8 @@ static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
> >  		goto out_notify;
> >  	BUG_ON(!cpu_online(cpu));
> >  
> > +	cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> > +
> >  	/* Now call notifier in preparation. */
> >  	raw_notifier_call_chain(&cpu_chain, CPU_ONLINE | mod, hcpu);
> >  
> > @@ -383,9 +385,6 @@ int __cpuinit cpu_up(unsigned int cpu)
> >  
> >  	err = _cpu_up(cpu, 0);
> >  
> > -	if (cpu_online(cpu))
> > -		cpu_set(cpu, cpu_active_map);
> > -
> 
> Ok, not only does that fix the bug, but it simplifies the code and 
> looks obviously ok. However, I don't have it in my tree yet, and I'd 
> like to do an -rc3 that has this fixes (so that along with the PCI MSI 
> thing, we hopefully have most of the suspend/resume regressions 
> fixed).
> 
> And I was hoping to do -rc3 today. Can I please have pull-requests for 
> the appropriate urgent scheduler/x86 fixes? Or should I just take 
> these as patches?

i'll send pull requests for all pending patches. I wanted to send them 
tomorrow originally but will do them now.

	Ingo