[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20060830105434.d00ae4dc.pj@sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:54:34 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
To: paulmck@...ibm.com
Cc: ego@...ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
arjan@...radead.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, torvalds@...l.org,
akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...el.linux.com,
davej@...hat.com, dipankar@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com,
ashok.raj@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] Rename lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug
Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Well, my next question was going to be whether cpuset readers really
> need to exclude the writers, or whether there can be a transition
> period while the mastodon makes the change as long as it avoids stomping
> the locusts. ;-)
The mastodon's (aka mammoths ;) may make a batch of several related
changes to the cpuset configuration. What's important is that the
locusts see either none or all of the changes in a given batch, not
some intermediate inconsistent state, and that the locusts see the
change batches in the same order they were applied.
Off the top of my head, I doubt I care when the locusts see the
changes. Some delay is ok, if that's your question.
But don't try too hard to fit any work you do to cpusets. For now,
I don't plan to mess with cpuset locking anytime soon. And when I
do next, it might be that all I need to do is to change the quick
lock held by the locusts from a mutex to an ordinary rwsem, so that
multiple readers (locusts) can access the cpuset configuration in
parallel.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@....com> 1.925.600.0401
-
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