From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932123AbbJNUfj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:35:39 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:50528 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753461AbbJNUfi (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:35:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:35:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: select_task_rq() should check cpu_active()
 like select_fallback_rq()
Message-ID: <20151014203532.GX3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20151010185255.GA24075@redhat.com>
 <20151010185309.GA24089@redhat.com>
 <20151012121657.GP3816@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151012173402.GA29647@redhat.com>
 <20151014150023.GT3604@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20151014200516.GA11157@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151014200516.GA11157@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:05:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Yes, because that damn cpu_active() check doesn't look strictly necessary ;)
> Or I misunderstood.

How about we sit down and have a hard look after Thomas is done
revamping hotplug? I don't want to go pour over hotplug code that is
guaranteed to change.