lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] specific do_timer_cpu value for nohz off mode
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 04:16:10PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:11:31 -0800
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:29:59 -0600
> > Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +static ssize_t sysfs_store_do_timer_cpu(struct sys_device *dev,
> > > + struct sysdev_attribute *attr,
> > > + const char *buf, size_t size)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sysdev_ext_attribute *ea = SYSDEV_TO_EXT_ATTR(attr);
> > > + unsigned int new;
> > > + int rv;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> > > + /* nohz mode not supported */
> > > + if (tick_nohz_enabled)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > + rv = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &new);
> > > + if (rv)
> > > + return rv;
> > > +
> > > + if (new >= NR_CPUS || !cpu_online(new))
> > > + return -ERANGE;
> > > +
> > > + *(unsigned int *)(ea->var) = new;
> > > + return size;
> > > +}
> >
> > checkpatch tells us:
> >
> > WARNING: usage of NR_CPUS is often wrong - consider using cpu_possible(), num_possible_cpus(), for_each_possible_cpu(), etc
> >
> > I think the check can just be removed? Surely cpu_online(1000000000)
> > will return false?
> >
>
> And the whole thing is racy, isn't it? The "new" CPU can go offline a
> nanosecond after we performed that test, so why perform it at all?

See my email concerning the panic in cpu_online().


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-01 03:09    [W:0.824 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site