On Wed, 24 May 2017, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > @@ -8920,7 +8912,7 @@ perf_event_mux_interval_ms_store(struct
> > pmu->hrtimer_interval_ms = timer;
> >
> > /* update all cpuctx for this PMU */
> > - get_online_cpus();
> > + cpus_read_lock();
>
> OK, I'll bite...
>
> Why is this piece using cpus_read_lock() instead of pmus_lock?
>
> My guess is for the benefit of the cpu_function_call() below, but if
> the code instead cycled through the perf_online_mask, wouldn't any
> CPU selected be guaranteed to be online?
Indeed.
> Or is there some reason that it would be necessary to specially handle
> CPUs that perf does not consider to be active, but that are still at
> least partway online?
I have to delegate that question to Peter :)
Thanks,
tglx
