Re: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus -v5

[Venki Pallipadi]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM, David Daney <ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/27/2012 02:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:55:55 -0800
>> David Daney<ddaney.cavm@xxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/31/2012 04:17 PM, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kernel's notion of possible cpus (from include/linux/cpumask.h)
>>>>   *     cpu_possible_mask- has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu is populatable
>>>>
>>>>   *  The cpu_possible_mask is fixed at boot time, as the set of CPU id's
>>>>   *  that it is possible might ever be plugged in at anytime during the
>>>>   *  life of that system boot.
>>>>
>>>>   #define num_possible_cpus()     cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
>>>>
>>>> and on x86 cpumask_weight() calls hweight64 and hweight64 (on older
>>>> kernels
>>>> and systems with !X86_FEATURE_POPCNT) or a popcnt based alternative.
>>>>
>>>> i.e, We needlessly go through this mask based calculation everytime
>>>> num_possible_cpus() is called.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is there with cpu_online_mask() as well, which is fixed
>>>> value at
>>>> boot time in !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU case and should not change that often
>>>> even
>>>> in HOTPLUG case.
>>>>
>>>> Though most of the callers of these two routines are init time (with few
>>>> exceptions of runtime calls), it is cleaner to use variables
>>>> and not go through this repeated mask based calculation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi<venki@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Acked-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat<srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>> How is it that this patch got merged to linux-next before all the
>>> cleanup patches for nr_online_cpus?
>>
>>
>> <spends five minutes searching mailing list archives>
>>
>> I for one do not have a clue what patches the term "cleanup patches for
>> nr_online_cpus" refers to.  Patches have names - please use them!
>>
>
> Sorry about that.  I was a little hasty:
>
>  From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup raw handling of online/possible map
>  Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:49:41 -0800
>  Message-Id: <1329259784-20592-1-git-send-email-venki@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I don't really know a better way to refer to them.
>
> David Daney
>
>
>
>
>>>   From the looks of your follow-on patches it would seem that all MIPS,
>>> hexagon, and um are now broken.
>>>
>>> I know for a fact that MIPS doesn't boot because of this.
>>
>>
>> I shall drop
>> cpumask-avoid-mask-based-num_possible_cpus-and-num_online_cpus.patch.
>>
>> That patch was sent as a single standalone patch and the changelog had
>> no mention of any needed preparatory patches.  If resending, please
>> send *all* patches in a single sequence-numbered series.  We know how
>> to do this.
>
>
> It is possible that Venkatesh did not know about the breakage when the
> original patch was sent

Sorry about all the confusion with this change. The long story goes
something like this:

Yes. The problems with this patch "Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus
and num_online_cpus"
were uncovered after it went into mm. First report was on ia64 here
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/13/327

And there were potential problems in other archs as well. Srivatsa and
I sent out a bunch of cleanups
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/14/355
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/14/380

Rusty followed up with a superset of these cleanups
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/15/4

I asked Rusty to pick up my original patch as the last patch in his series.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/15/516

That's all the happenings that I remember. I am not sure what the
status of Rusty's or my cleanup patches is right now. I am looking at
various trees now trying to find these cleanup patches. I can resubmit
this particular change once the cleanups have made through.

Thanks,
Venki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/