Hi Ingo,
  Here is another patch submitted that has not been acked/nacked yet. =20
If you get a free moment, please let me know your thoughts.  Here is the =

full thread for your convenience:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/22/281

(and FYI it was ACKed by Peter here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/22/286)

-Greg

Gregory Haskins wrote:
quoted text
> Max Krasnyansky wrote:
>> Greg, correct me if I'm wrong but we seem to have exact same issue=20
>> with the
>> rq->rq->online map. Lets take "cpu going down" for example. We're=20
>> clearing
>> rq->rd->online bit on DYING event, but nothing AFAICS prevents=20
>> another cpu
>> calling rebuild_sched_domains()->partition_sched_domains() in the=20
>> middle of
>> the hotplug sequence.
>> partition_sched_domains() will happily reset rd->rq->online mask and=20
>> things
>> will fail. I'm talking about this path
>>
>> __build_sched_domains() -> cpu_attach_domain() -> rq_attach_root()
>>     ...
>>     cpu_set(rq->cpu, rd->span);
>>     if (cpu_isset(rq->cpu, cpu_online_map))
>>         set_rq_online(rq);
>>     ...
>>
>>  =20
>
> I think you are right, but wouldn't s/online/active above fix that as=20
> well?  The active_map didnt exist at the time that code went in=20
> initially ;)
>
>> --=20
>>
>> btw Why didn't we convert sched*.c to use rq->rd->online when it was
>> introduced ? ie Instead of using cpu_online_map directly.
>>  =20
> I think things were converted where they made sense to convert.  But=20
> we also had a different goal at that time, so perhaps something was=20
> missed.  If you think something else should be converted, please point =

quoted text
> it out.
>
> In the meantime, I would suggest we consider this patch on top of=20
> yours (applies to tip/sched/devel):
>
> ----------------------
>
> sched: Fully integrate cpus_active_map and root-domain code
>   Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 62b1b8e..99ba70d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -6611,7 +6611,7 @@ static void rq_attach_root(struct rq *rq, struct =

quoted text
> root_domain *rd)
>     rq->rd =3D rd;
>
>     cpu_set(rq->cpu, rd->span);
> -    if (cpu_isset(rq->cpu, cpu_online_map))
> +    if (cpu_isset(rq->cpu, cpu_active_map))
>         set_rq_online(rq);
>
>     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> index 7f70026..2bae8de 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> @@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq)
>  * search starts with cpus closest then further out as needed,
>  * so we always favor a closer, idle cpu.
>  * Domains may include CPUs that are not usable for migration,
> - * hence we need to mask them out (cpu_active_map)
> + * hence we need to mask them out (rq->rd->online)
>  *
>  * Returns the CPU we should wake onto.
>  */
> @@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static int wake_idle(int cpu, struct task_struct =

quoted text
> *p)
>             || ((sd->flags & SD_WAKE_IDLE_FAR)
>             && !task_hot(p, task_rq(p)->clock, sd))) {
>             cpus_and(tmp, sd->span, p->cpus_allowed);
> -            cpus_and(tmp, tmp, cpu_active_map);
> +            cpus_and(tmp, tmp, task_rq(p)->rd->online);
>             for_each_cpu_mask(i, tmp) {
>                 if (idle_cpu(i)) {
>                     if (i !=3D task_cpu(p)) {
> diff --git a/kernel/sched_rt.c b/kernel/sched_rt.c
> index 24621ce..d93169d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched_rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched_rt.c
> @@ -936,13 +936,6 @@ static int find_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task=
)
quoted text
>         return -1; /* No targets found */
>
>     /*
> -     * Only consider CPUs that are usable for migration.
> -     * I guess we might want to change cpupri_find() to ignore those
> -     * in the first place.
> -     */
> -    cpus_and(*lowest_mask, *lowest_mask, cpu_active_map);
> -
> -    /*
>      * At this point we have built a mask of cpus representing the
>      * lowest priority tasks in the system.  Now we want to elect
>      * the best one based on our affinity and topology.
>
> --------------
>
> Regards,
> -Greg
>