Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 29 Aug 2023 11:24:24 +0200
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Z qiang <qiang.zhang1211@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rcutorture: Traverse possible cpu to set maxcpu in
 rcu_nocb_toggle()
Message-ID: <ZO25SDat3cd6opQ7@lothringen>
References: <ZOy6mfw5Yr7hsi3i@2a01cb09806c67d6fe4a366cc09da8f8.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr>
 <16F11103-75C4-4DCE-8272-D619ECAA96BD@joelfernandes.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16F11103-75C4-4DCE-8272-D619ECAA96BD@joelfernandes.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 05:51:09PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> I think the issue is the loop later in the function does
> not try to toggle cpus that came online too late.
> 
> So it does not test offloading on all CPUs just because max got updated too
> late.

Right, and therefore for_each_possible_cpu() or for_each_present_cpu()
should be fine to iterate since it's ok to try to toggle an offline CPU.

> 
> One fix could be to periodically check in the loop if a new cpu at maxcpu + 1
> ever got onlined. If it did, update the maxcpu.

Is it worth the complication though?

Thanks.

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks.