Alexey Klimov writes:
> The first section of comment seems problematic to me with regards to such
> move:
>
> * As this needs to hold the cpu maps lock it's impossible
> * to call device_offline() because that ends up calling
> * cpu_down()
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:42 PM Daniel Jordan
wrote:
>
> Alexey Klimov writes:
> > int cpu_device_up(struct device *dev)
>
> Yeah, definitely better to do the wait here.
>
> > int cpuhp_smt_disable(enum cpuhp_smt_control ctrlval)
> > {
> > - int cpu, ret = 0;
> > + struct device *dev;
On 02/12/21 00:30, Alexey Klimov wrote:
> When a CPU offlined and onlined via device_offline() and device_online()
> the userspace gets uevent notification. If, after receiving "online" uevent,
> userspace executes sched_setaffinity() on some task trying to move it
> to a recently onlined CPU,
Alexey Klimov writes:
> int cpu_device_up(struct device *dev)
Yeah, definitely better to do the wait here.
> int cpuhp_smt_disable(enum cpuhp_smt_control ctrlval)
> {
> - int cpu, ret = 0;
> + struct device *dev;
> + cpumask_var_t mask;
> + int cpu, ret;
> +
> + if
When a CPU offlined and onlined via device_offline() and device_online()
the userspace gets uevent notification. If, after receiving "online" uevent,
userspace executes sched_setaffinity() on some task trying to move it
to a recently onlined CPU, then it often fails with -EINVAL. Userspace needs
5 matches
Mail list logo
