in cpu_down(), _cpu_down() will do
"
if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
return -EBUSY;
"
when cpu_hotplug_disabled was set, num_online_cpus
will return 1 for there's only 1 boot cpu.
so, it's unnecessary to check cpu_hotplug_disabled
here.
Signed-off-by: liguang <[email protected]>
---
kernel/cpu.c | 6 ------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
index b5e4ab2..cd166d3 100644
--- a/kernel/cpu.c
+++ b/kernel/cpu.c
@@ -330,14 +330,8 @@ int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
cpu_maps_update_begin();
- if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
- err = -EBUSY;
- goto out;
- }
-
err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
-out:
cpu_maps_update_done();
return err;
}
--
1.7.2.5
On 04/29/2013 08:19 AM, liguang wrote:
> in cpu_down(), _cpu_down() will do
> "
> if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> return -EBUSY;
> "
> when cpu_hotplug_disabled was set, num_online_cpus
> will return 1 for there's only 1 boot cpu.
> so, it's unnecessary to check cpu_hotplug_disabled
> here.
>
The 2 checks serve very different purposes; they are not the same!
The num_online_cpus() check is to ensure that the user doesn't do
something insane like trying to offline the last online CPU in the
system.
Whereas, the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is used to prevent user-
triggered CPU hotplug (such as those initiated through sysfs).
This is useful in cases where the system itself wants to initiate CPU
hotplug and it doesn't want annoying races with CPU hotplug going
on in parallel due to other reasons. One such case is suspend/resume.
That's why, if you have noticed, the suspend/resume code invokes the
_cpu_down() version, in order to bypass the flag and get its job done.
So, no, I think the check needs to stay.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
> Signed-off-by: liguang <[email protected]>
> ---
> kernel/cpu.c | 6 ------
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> index b5e4ab2..cd166d3 100644
> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> @@ -330,14 +330,8 @@ int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
>
> cpu_maps_update_begin();
>
> - if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
> - err = -EBUSY;
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
> err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
>
> -out:
> cpu_maps_update_done();
> return err;
> }
>
在 2013-04-29一的 10:00 +0530，Srivatsa S. Bhat写道：
> On 04/29/2013 08:19 AM, liguang wrote:
> > in cpu_down(), _cpu_down() will do
> > "
> > if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> > return -EBUSY;
> > "
> > when cpu_hotplug_disabled was set, num_online_cpus
> > will return 1 for there's only 1 boot cpu.
> > so, it's unnecessary to check cpu_hotplug_disabled
> > here.
> >
>
> The 2 checks serve very different purposes; they are not the same!
purposes are different, but I think effects are same for this case,
the statement 'if ((num_online_cpus() == 1)' seems
have same effect with cpu_hotplug_disabled here,
because when cpu_hotplug_disabled, only boot cpu is online
>
> The num_online_cpus() check is to ensure that the user doesn't do
> something insane like trying to offline the last online CPU in the
> system.
>
> Whereas, the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is used to prevent user-
> triggered CPU hotplug (such as those initiated through sysfs).
> This is useful in cases where the system itself wants to initiate CPU
> hotplug and it doesn't want annoying races with CPU hotplug going
> on in parallel due to other reasons. One such case is suspend/resume.
> That's why, if you have noticed, the suspend/resume code invokes the
> _cpu_down() version, in order to bypass the flag and get its job done.
>
> So, no, I think the check needs to stay.
>
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>
> > Signed-off-by: liguang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > kernel/cpu.c | 6 ------
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> > index b5e4ab2..cd166d3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > @@ -330,14 +330,8 @@ int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> >
> > cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >
> > - if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
> > - err = -EBUSY;
> > - goto out;
> > - }
> > -
> > err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
> >
> > -out:
> > cpu_maps_update_done();
> > return err;
> > }
> >
>
On 04/29/2013 10:12 AM, li guang wrote:
> 在 2013-04-29一的 10:00 +0530，Srivatsa S. Bhat写道：
>> On 04/29/2013 08:19 AM, liguang wrote:
>>> in cpu_down(), _cpu_down() will do
>>> "
>>> if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
>>> return -EBUSY;
>>> "
>>> when cpu_hotplug_disabled was set, num_online_cpus
>>> will return 1 for there's only 1 boot cpu.
>>> so, it's unnecessary to check cpu_hotplug_disabled
>>> here.
>>>
>>
>> The 2 checks serve very different purposes; they are not the same!
>
> purposes are different, but I think effects are same for this case,
> the statement 'if ((num_online_cpus() == 1)' seems
> have same effect with cpu_hotplug_disabled here,
> because when cpu_hotplug_disabled, only boot cpu is online
>
Why do you keep saying that? They are *two* *different* checks!
Whether they happen to have the same effect or not completely depends
on the particular *usecase*. And for example, in the suspend/resume case,
when the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is set, *all* CPUs are online!
Only much later do we actually call disable_nonboot_cpus() to offline
the non-boot CPUs. Take a look at the following functions, then you'll
see what scenario I'm referring to:
cpu_hotplug_disable_before_freeze(), cpu_hotplug_disable_after_thaw()
Also, recently, there was another usecase for the cpu_hotplug_disabled
flag, in the reboot code. Here is the link to that discussion:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1480380
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
>> The num_online_cpus() check is to ensure that the user doesn't do
>> something insane like trying to offline the last online CPU in the
>> system.
>>
>> Whereas, the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is used to prevent user-
>> triggered CPU hotplug (such as those initiated through sysfs).
>> This is useful in cases where the system itself wants to initiate CPU
>> hotplug and it doesn't want annoying races with CPU hotplug going
>> on in parallel due to other reasons. One such case is suspend/resume.
>> That's why, if you have noticed, the suspend/resume code invokes the
>> _cpu_down() version, in order to bypass the flag and get its job done.
>>
>> So, no, I think the check needs to stay.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: liguang <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/cpu.c | 6 ------
>>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
>>> index b5e4ab2..cd166d3 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
>>> @@ -330,14 +330,8 @@ int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
>>>
>>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
>>>
>>> - if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
>>> - err = -EBUSY;
>>> - goto out;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
>>>
>>> -out:
>>> cpu_maps_update_done();
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>
>
在 2013-04-29一的 10:29 +0530，Srivatsa S. Bhat写道：
> On 04/29/2013 10:12 AM, li guang wrote:
> > 在 2013-04-29一的 10:00 +0530，Srivatsa S. Bhat写道：
> >> On 04/29/2013 08:19 AM, liguang wrote:
> >>> in cpu_down(), _cpu_down() will do
> >>> "
> >>> if (num_online_cpus() == 1)
> >>> return -EBUSY;
> >>> "
> >>> when cpu_hotplug_disabled was set, num_online_cpus
> >>> will return 1 for there's only 1 boot cpu.
> >>> so, it's unnecessary to check cpu_hotplug_disabled
> >>> here.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The 2 checks serve very different purposes; they are not the same!
> >
> > purposes are different, but I think effects are same for this case,
> > the statement 'if ((num_online_cpus() == 1)' seems
> > have same effect with cpu_hotplug_disabled here,
> > because when cpu_hotplug_disabled, only boot cpu is online
> >
>
> Why do you keep saying that? They are *two* *different* checks!
> Whether they happen to have the same effect or not completely depends
> on the particular *usecase*. And for example, in the suspend/resume case,
> when the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is set, *all* CPUs are online!
> Only much later do we actually call disable_nonboot_cpus() to offline
> the non-boot CPUs. Take a look at the following functions, then you'll
> see what scenario I'm referring to:
> cpu_hotplug_disable_before_freeze(), cpu_hotplug_disable_after_thaw()
>
> Also, recently, there was another usecase for the cpu_hotplug_disabled
> flag, in the reboot code. Here is the link to that discussion:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1480380
>
OK, Thanks!
>
> >>
> >> The num_online_cpus() check is to ensure that the user doesn't do
> >> something insane like trying to offline the last online CPU in the
> >> system.
> >>
> >> Whereas, the flag 'cpu_hotplug_disabled' is used to prevent user-
> >> triggered CPU hotplug (such as those initiated through sysfs).
> >> This is useful in cases where the system itself wants to initiate CPU
> >> hotplug and it doesn't want annoying races with CPU hotplug going
> >> on in parallel due to other reasons. One such case is suspend/resume.
> >> That's why, if you have noticed, the suspend/resume code invokes the
> >> _cpu_down() version, in order to bypass the flag and get its job done.
> >>
> >> So, no, I think the check needs to stay.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: liguang <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> kernel/cpu.c | 6 ------
> >>> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c
> >>> index b5e4ab2..cd166d3 100644
> >>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> >>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> >>> @@ -330,14 +330,8 @@ int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
> >>>
> >>> cpu_maps_update_begin();
> >>>
> >>> - if (cpu_hotplug_disabled) {
> >>> - err = -EBUSY;
> >>> - goto out;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> err = _cpu_down(cpu, 0);
> >>>
> >>> -out:
> >>> cpu_maps_update_done();
> >>> return err;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>