[PATCH 14/14] cpumask: don't recommend set_cpus_allowed hack in Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt

[PATCH 14/14] cpumask: don't recommend set_cpus_allowed hack in Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt

[Rusty Russell]

Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
---
 Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt |   49 ++++++++++++++----------------------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
--- a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
+++ b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
@@ -309,41 +309,26 @@ A: The following are what is required fo
 
 Q: I need to ensure that a particular cpu is not removed when there is some
    work specific to this cpu is in progress.
-A: First switch the current thread context to preferred cpu
+A: There are two ways.  If your code can be run in interrupt context, use
+   smp_call_function_single(), otherwise use work_on_cpu().  Note that
+   work_on_cpu() can fail due to out of memory:
 
 	int my_func_on_cpu(int cpu)
 	{
-		cpumask_t saved_mask, new_mask = CPU_MASK_NONE;
-		int curr_cpu, err = 0;
-
-		saved_mask = current->cpus_allowed;
-		cpu_set(cpu, new_mask);
-		err = set_cpus_allowed(current, new_mask);
-
-		if (err)
-			return err;
-
-		/*
-		 * If we got scheduled out just after the return from
-		 * set_cpus_allowed() before running the work, this ensures
-		 * we stay locked.
-		 */
-		curr_cpu = get_cpu();
-
-		if (curr_cpu != cpu) {
-			err = -EAGAIN;
-			goto ret;
-		} else {
-			/*
-			 * Do work : But cant sleep, since get_cpu() disables preempt
-			 */
-		}
-		ret:
-			put_cpu();
-			set_cpus_allowed(current, saved_mask);
-			return err;
-		}
-
+		int err;
+		cpu_hotplug_lock();
+		if (!cpu_online(cpu))
+			err = -EINVAL;
+		else
+#if NEEDS_BLOCKING
+			err = work_on_cpu(cpu, __my_func_on_cpu, NULL);
+#else
+			smp_call_function_single(cpu, __my_func_on_cpu, &err,
+						 true);
+#endif
+		cpu_hotplug_unlock();
+		return err;
+	}
 
 Q: How do we determine how many CPUs are available for hotplug.
 A: There is no clear spec defined way from ACPI that can give us that

Re: [PATCH 14/14] cpumask: don't recommend set_cpus_allowed hack in Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt

[Gautham R Shenoy]

Hi Rusty,

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 02:59:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt |   49 ++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
> --- a/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt
> @@ -309,41 +309,26 @@ A: The following are what is required fo
> 
>  Q: I need to ensure that a particular cpu is not removed when there is some
>     work specific to this cpu is in progress.
> -A: First switch the current thread context to preferred cpu
> +A: There are two ways.  If your code can be run in interrupt context, use
> +   smp_call_function_single(), otherwise use work_on_cpu().  Note that
> +   work_on_cpu() can fail due to out of memory:
> 
>  	int my_func_on_cpu(int cpu)
>  	{
> +		int err;
> +		cpu_hotplug_lock();
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This needs to be get_online_cpus();
> +		if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +		else
> +#if NEEDS_BLOCKING
> +			err = work_on_cpu(cpu, __my_func_on_cpu, NULL);
> +#else
> +			smp_call_function_single(cpu, __my_func_on_cpu, &err,
> +						 true);
> +#endif
> +		cpu_hotplug_unlock();
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And this one should be put_online_cpus();

> +		return err;
> +	}
> 
>  Q: How do we determine how many CPUs are available for hotplug.
>  A: There is no clear spec defined way from ACPI that can give us that

-- 
Thanks and Regards
gautham

Re: [PATCH 14/14] cpumask: don't recommend set_cpus_allowed hack in Documentation/cpu-hotplug.txt

[Rusty Russell]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 04:27:23 pm Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 02:59:06PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
...
> > +		int err;
> > +		cpu_hotplug_lock();
> 		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This needs to be get_online_cpus();

Thanks, both fixed!

Rusty.