On 04/12/21 12:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 07:30:37PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 03/10/21 15:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c
> > > @@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ static int cpuhp_invoke_callback(unsigne
> > > int (*cb)(unsigned int cpu);
> > > int ret, cnt;
> > >
> > > + if (bringup != !cpu_dying(cpu))
> >
> > nit: this condition is hard to read
> >
> > > + set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup);
>
> How's:
>
> if (cpu_dying(cpu) != !bringup)
> set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup);
Slightly better I suppose :)
>
> > since cpu_dying() will do cpumask_test_cpu(), are we saving much if we
> > unconditionally call set_cpu_dying(cpu, !bringup) which performs
> > cpumask_{set, clear}_cpu()?
>
> This is hotplug, it's all slow, endlessly rewriting that bit shouldn't
> be a problem I suppose.
True. Beside I doubt there's a performance hit really, cpu_dying() will read
the bit in the cpumask anyway, unconditionally writing will be as fast since
both will fetch the cacheline anyway?
Regardless, not really a big deal. It's not really the hardest thing to stare
at here ;-)
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
