Re: [RFC patch 2/5] smpboot: Provide infrastructure for percpu hotplug threads

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:00:54AM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> So I am currently trying to apply this to RCU's per-CPU kthread.
> I don't believe that I need to mess with RCU's per-rcu_node kthread
> because it can just have its affinity adjusted when the first CPU
> onlines and the last CPU offlines for the corresponding rcu_node.
> 
> One question below about the order of parking.
> 
> Also, I have not yet figured out how this avoids a parked thread waking
> up while the CPU is offline, but I am probably still missing something.

If it's just a spurious wakeup then it goes back to sleep right away
as nothing cleared the park bit.

If something calls unpark(), then it's toast. I should put a warning
into the code somewhere to catch that case.

> > +void smpboot_park_threads(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	struct smp_hotplug_thread *cur;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&smpboot_threads_lock);
> > +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &hotplug_threads, list)
> 
> Shouldn't this be list_for_each_entry_reverse()?  Yes, the notifiers
> still run in the same order for both online and offline, but all uses
> of smpboot_park_threads() would be new, so should be OK with the
> proper ordering, right?

Duh, yes

Thanks,

	tglx