[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 10:48:56 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 13:13:05 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > Why prevent all CPUs from running when we want to remove
> > > > one?
> > >
> > > So get_online_cpus() goes away. Nothing is more scalable than nothing!
> >
> > Very much agreed; now stop_machine() wouldn't actually work for hotplug
> > because it will instantly preempt everybody, including someone who might
> > be in the middle of using per-cpu state of the cpu we're about to
> > remove.
>
> Well, stop machine doesn't instantly preempt everybody. Only those that
> don't have preemption disabled. Using per_cpu without preemption
> disabled can be dangerous.
Yes, I'd have thought that the cases where a CPU is fiddling with
another CPU's percpu data with preemption enabled would be rather rare.
I can't actually think of any off the top. Are there examples we can
look at?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists