On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 07:04:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
> >
> > arch_hw_breakpoint_init() holds get_online_cpus() while registerring the
> > hotplug callbacks.
> >
> > cpuhp_setup_state() invokes get_online_cpus() as well. This is correct, but
> > prevents the conversion of the hotplug locking to a percpu rwsem.
> >
> > Use cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked() to avoid the nested call.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Russell King <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> >
> > ---
> > arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c
> > @@ -1098,8 +1098,9 @@ static int __init arch_hw_breakpoint_ini
> > * assume that a halting debugger will leave the world in a nice state
> > * for us.
> > */
> > - ret = cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN, "arm/hw_breakpoint:online",
> > - dbg_reset_online, NULL);
> > + ret = cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
> > + "arm/hw_breakpoint:online",
> > + dbg_reset_online, NULL);
>
> Given the callsite, this particular change looks ok to me. So FWIW:
>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
>
> However, as a more general note, the changes make the API feel odd. per
> their current names, {get,put}_online_cpus() sound/feel like refcounting
> ops, which should be able to nest.
>
> Is there any chance these could get a better name, e.g.
> {lock,unlock}_online_cpus(), so as to align with _cpuslocked?
Yes, that's a follow up cleanup patch treewide once this hit Linus tree.
Thanks,
tglx
