[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060824110306.GB3651@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:33:06 +0530
From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
torvalds@...l.org, akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arjan@...el.linux.com, mingo@...e.hu, davej@...hat.com,
vatsa@...ibm.com, ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] Revert Changes to kernel/workqueue.c
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > @@ -510,13 +515,11 @@ int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(vo
> > if (!works)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > INIT_WORK(per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu), func, info);
> > __queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu),
> > per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu));
> > }
> > - mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > flush_workqueue(keventd_wq);
> > free_percpu(works);
> > return 0;
>
> Removing this lock without adding a lock/unlock_cpu_hotplug seems wrong,
> since this function is walking the cpu_online_map.
As long as you disable preemption and don't block the critical
section should be safe from cpu hotplug. There is no need to
lock/unlock cpu hotplug.
Thanks
Dipankar
-
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