From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261473AbVBOR2o (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:28:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261488AbVBOR2h (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:28:37 -0500 Received: from orb.pobox.com ([207.8.226.5]:10929 "EHLO orb.pobox.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261473AbVBOR0k (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:26:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:26:34 -0600 From: Nathan Lynch To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: lkml , Rusty Russell , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6-bk: cpu hotplug + preempt = smp_processor_id warnings galore Message-ID: <20050215172634.GB22304@otto> References: <20050211232821.GA14499@otto> <20050214215948.GA22304@otto> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 08:29:33AM -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Nathan Lynch wrote: > > > It looks as if we need to explicitly bind worker threads to a newly > > onlined cpu. This gets rid of the smp_processor_id warnings from > > cache_reap. Adding a little more instrumentation to the debug > > smp_processor_id showed that new worker threads were actually running > > on the wrong cpu... > > > > Does this look ok? > > Yeah, does that patch suffice for all the warnings? Nope, ksoftirqd still requires your patch in order to kill the warnings there. Nathan