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); 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()? > + > if (st->fail == state) { > st->fail = CPUHP_INVALID; > return -EAGAIN; Thanks -- Qais yousef