On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:02 PM Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > At least since v4.19, the FQS loop no longer reports quiescent states I meant here, "FQS loop no longer reports quiescent states for offline CPUs." Sorry, - Joel > unless it is a dire situation where an offlined CPU failed to report > a quiescent state. Let us clarify the comment in rcu_gp_init() inorder > to keep the comment current. > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/rcu/tree.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/tree.c b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > index 1e51962b565b..929568ff5989 100644 > --- a/kernel/rcu/tree.c > +++ b/kernel/rcu/tree.c > @@ -1701,8 +1701,8 @@ static bool rcu_gp_init(void) > > /* > * Apply per-leaf buffered online and offline operations to the > - * rcu_node tree. Note that this new grace period need not wait > - * for subsequent online CPUs, and that quiescent-state forcing > + * rcu_node tree. Note that this new grace period need not wait for > + * subsequent online CPUs, and that RCU hooks in CPU offlining path > * will handle subsequent offline CPUs. > */ > rcu_state.gp_state = RCU_GP_ONOFF; > -- > 2.28.0.rc0.142.g3c755180ce-goog >
