Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> But "[PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in >> work_on_cpu." removes get_online_cpus/put_online_cpus, this means the >> work can run on the wrong CPU anyway. Or work_on_cpu() can hang forever >> if CPU has already gone away before queue_work_on(). >> >> Confused. > > The idea was to require work_on_cpu() users to be CPU hotplug-safe. But > ... Rusty pointed it out in the past that this might be fragile, and we > could put back the get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() calls. > > Rusty, what do you think? > > Ingo I believe that is the intention, in that the caller should insure that the cpu does not go offline. But also as Rusty stated, the previous usages of set_cpus_allowed did not always insure this, so it's at least not a regression. I'll put it on my todo list to check the references in tip/cpus4096 to see where they stand on the get_online_cpus() issue. Thanks, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
