On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 03:22:21AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > Hi Nathan,
> > > Hi Gautham-
> > >
> > > Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> > > > Replace all lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug from the kernel and use
> > > > get_online_cpus and put_online_cpus instead as it highlights
> > > > the refcount semantics in these operations.
> > >
> > > Something other than "get_online_cpus", please? lock_cpu_hotplug()
> > > protects cpu_present_map as well as cpu_online_map. For example, some
> > > of the powerpc code modified in this patch is made a bit less clear
> > > because it is manipulating cpu_present_map, not cpu_online_map.
> >
> > A quick look at the code, and I am wondering why is lock_cpu_hotplug()
> > used there in the first place. It doesn't look like we require any
> > protection against cpus coming up/ going down in the code below,
> > since the cpu-hotplug operation doesn't affect the cpu_present_map.
>
> The locking is necessary. Changes to cpu_online_map and
> cpu_present_map must be serialized; otherwise you could end up trying
> to online a cpu as it is being removed (i.e. cleared from
> cpu_present_map). Online operations must check that a cpu is present
> before bringing it up (kernel/cpu.c):
Fair enough!
But we are not protecting the cpu_present_map here using
lock_cpu_hotplug(), now are we?
The lock_cpu_hotplug() here, ensures that no cpu-hotplug operations
occur in parallel with a processor add or a processor remove.
IOW, we're still ensuring that the cpu_online_map doesn't change
while we're changing the cpu_present_map. So I don't see why the name
get_online_cpus() should be a problem here. May be we could add a
comment as to why we don't want a cpu-hotplug operation to happen while
we're adding/removing a processor.
Unless of course, lock_cpu_hotplug() is also used to serialize
the add_processor and remove_processor operations. Is that the case
here ?
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
>
> /* Requires cpu_add_remove_lock to be held */
> static int __cpuinit _cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, int tasks_frozen)
> {
> int ret, nr_calls = 0;
> void *hcpu = (void *)(long)cpu;
> unsigned long mod = tasks_frozen ? CPU_TASKS_FROZEN : 0;
>
> if (cpu_online(cpu) || !cpu_present(cpu))
> return -EINVAL;
> ....
>
> > Can't we use another mutex here instead of the cpu_hotplug mutex here ?
>
> I guess so, but I don't really see the need...
>
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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]
