Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:45:50PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> > On 1/4/06, Nathan Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This is where things go wrong -- any_online_cpu() now gets 1, not 0.
> > > In queue_work, the cpu_workqueue_struct at per_cpu_ptr(wq->cpu_wq, 1) is
> > > uninitialized.
> >
> > Same issue on ia64 when I tried to add Ashok' s patch to allow
> > removal of cpu0 (BSP in ia64-speak). Ashok told me that this fix
> > solves the problem for us too.
> >
>
> Is this safe to use in NUMA path as well? Not that memory hot-remove is there
> yet today, but if a NUMA node is being removed, i would assume the memory for
> that node goes with it. i.e assuming alloc_percpu() gets node local memory for
> each cpu.
I guess I don't understand your concern here -- the workqueue patch
doesn't introduce any potential difficulty with memory or node removal
that alloc_percpu didn't already have.
> So is it safe to continue to reference an area of an offline cpu that may not
> exist?
Yes.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
