Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180728215357.3249-1-riel@surriel.com> <20180728215357.3249-4-riel@surriel.com>
 <CALCETrUipqat-78++E8fL7d2=77Cbj72jCTZMO=yNF8nX9HhCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1532865634.28585.2.camel@surriel.com> <E710FBA5-CC5E-4941-ACBF-4AB3424F1F68@amacapital.net>
 <1532886673.28585.24.camel@surriel.com> <8A3221EE-0D94-487E-B53D-885A555634BD@amacapital.net>
In-Reply-To: <8A3221EE-0D94-487E-B53D-885A555634BD@amacapital.net>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:56:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx4eLxPK+jn639GW8UcdguVvXFdwMsM4Ko33yWMME5tAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] smp,cpumask: introduce on_each_cpu_cond_mask
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@fb.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, will.daecon@arm.com,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 11:55 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
> >
> > This seems to result in systems with ->has_wbinvd_exit
> > only calling wbinvd_ipi on OTHER CPUs, and not on the
> > CPU where the guest exited with wbinvd?
> >
> > This seems unintended.
> >
> > I guess looking into on_each_cpu_mask might be a little
> > higher priority than waiting until the next Outreachy
> > season :)
>
> The right approach might be a tree wise rename from smp_call_... to on_other_cpus_mask() it similar. The current naming and semantics are extremely confusing.

Ugh.

Renaming might be worth it, but at least one issue is that we are
simply not very consistent.

For example. smp_call_function_many() does indeed explicitly ignore
the current CPU.

But smp_call_function_any() (one "m" less) does _not_ ignore the
current CPU, and in fact prefers it.

So it's not that smp_call_... should *generally* be renamed. Only some
of the cases might be worth renaming.

And just a "rename and forget" isn't really great. As Rik's example
shows, existing users should be checked too..

                    Linus