Re: [PATCH v5 09/45] smp, cpu hotplug: Fix smp_call_function_*()to prevent CPU offline properly

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat
Date: Sun Feb 10 2013 - 15:01:31 EST

On 02/11/2013 01:26 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:11:29AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 02/09/2013 05:37 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:05:10PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able to
>>>> depend on preempt_disable() to prevent CPUs from going offline from under us.
>>>> Use the get/put_online_cpus_atomic() APIs to prevent CPUs from going offline,
>>>> while invoking from atomic context.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Would it make sense for get_online_cpus_atomic() to return the current
>>> CPU number?
>> Hmm, I'm not so sure. I tried to model it after get_online_cpus(), which doesn't
>> return anything (for other reasons, of course..)
>> Moreover, a function name like *_cpu_* returning the CPU number would be intuitive.
>> But a name such as *_cpus_* (plural) returning a CPU number might appear confusing..
>> And also I don't think it'll make a huge improvement in the callers.. (We might
>> be better off avoiding an smp_processor_id() if possible, since this function could
>> be called in very hot paths).. So I don't see a strong case for returning the
>> CPU number. But let me know if you think it'll still be worth it for some reason...
> I just noted a lot of two-line code sequences in your patch that would be
> one line if the CPU number was returned.

Ah, in that case, I'll reconsider your suggestion while working on the next version.

Srivatsa S. Bhat

> But I don't feel strongly about
> it, so if people are OK with the current version, no problem.
> Thanx, Paul

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at