From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751693Ab2LJEGq (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:06:46 -0500 Received: from e28smtp02.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.2]:38487 "EHLO e28smtp02.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751229Ab2LJEGo (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:06:44 -0500 Message-ID: <50C55F6A.4040909@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:34:58 +0530 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120828 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Oleg Nesterov CC: tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, mingo@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, tj@kernel.org, sbw@mit.edu, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, rjw@sisk.pl, wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 7/9] yield_to(), cpu-hotplug: Prevent offlining of other CPUs properly References: <20121207173702.27305.1486.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121207173950.27305.39499.stgit@srivatsabhat.in.ibm.com> <20121209194826.GB2816@redhat.com> <50C4ED46.3070100@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121209204053.GA6593@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20121209204053.GA6593@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12121004-5816-0000-0000-000005C47470 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/10/2012 02:10 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 12/10, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> >> On 12/10/2012 01:18 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >>>> - if (preempt && rq != p_rq) >>>> + if (preempt && rq != p_rq && cpu_online(task_cpu(p))) >>> >>> Why do we need this change? >>> >>> Afaics, you could add BUG_ON(!cpu_online(...)) instead? >>> >>> I am just curious. >>> >> >> Oh, I think that's a remnant of v1 (which needed readers to use >> cpu_online_stable()). You're right, we don't need it. > > Ah OK, thanks. > >> Or we could put a >> BUG_ON instead, like you suggested. > > IMHO it would be better to simply drop this chunk. > Sure, will drop it. Its distracting, if nothing else ;-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat