On 05/04/16 10:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:10:04AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> +int smp_call_on_cpu(unsigned int cpu, bool pin, int (*func)(void *), void *par)
>
> Why .pin and not .phys? .pin does not (to me) reflect the
> hypervisor/physical-cpu thing.
I don't mind either way. As you don't like .pin, lets name it .phys.
> Also, as per smp_call_function_single() would it not be more consistent
> to make this the last argument?
Okay, I'll change it.
>
>> +{
>> + struct smp_call_on_cpu_struct sscs = {
>> + .work = __WORK_INITIALIZER(sscs.work, smp_call_on_cpu_callback),
>> + .done = COMPLETION_INITIALIZER_ONSTACK(sscs.done),
>> + .func = func,
>> + .data = par,
>> + .cpu = pin ? cpu : -1,
>> + };
>> +
>> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
>
> You might want to also include cpu_online().
>
> if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids || !cpu_online(cpu))
Indeed, good idea.
>> + return -ENXIO;
>
> Seeing how its fairly hard to schedule work on a cpu that's not actually
> there.
Really? ;-)
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
