From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754503AbdEXSrI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 24 May 2017 14:47:08 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:33653 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754376AbdEXSrH (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 24 May 2017 14:47:07 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 20:47:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 23/32] perf/tracing/cpuhotplug: Fix locking order
In-Reply-To: <20170524183018.GH3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705242043000.2283@nanos>
References: <20170524081511.203800767@linutronix.de> <20170524081548.930941109@linutronix.de> <20170524183018.GH3956@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > @@ -8920,7 +8912,7 @@ perf_event_mux_interval_ms_store(struct
> >  	pmu->hrtimer_interval_ms = timer;
> > 
> >  	/* update all cpuctx for this PMU */
> > -	get_online_cpus();
> > +	cpus_read_lock();
> 
> OK, I'll bite...
> 
> Why is this piece using cpus_read_lock() instead of pmus_lock?
> 
> My guess is for the benefit of the cpu_function_call() below, but if
> the code instead cycled through the perf_online_mask, wouldn't any
> CPU selected be guaranteed to be online?

Indeed.

> Or is there some reason that it would be necessary to specially handle
> CPUs that perf does not consider to be active, but that are still at
> least partway online?

I have to delegate that question to Peter :)

Thanks,

	tglx