[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061211054545.GC5339@in.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:15:45 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Dipankar <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: workqueue deadlock
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 04:16:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> One quite different way of addressing all of this is to stop using
> stop_machine_run() for hotplug synchronisation and switch to the swsusp
> freezer infrastructure: all kernel threads and user processes need to stop
> and park themselves in a known state before we allow the CPU to be removed.
> lock_cpu_hotplug() becomes a no-op.
Well ...you still need to provide some mechanism for stable access to
cpu_online_map in blocking functions (ex: do_event_scan_all_cpus).
Freezing-tasks/Resuming-them-after-hotp-unplug is definitely not one of them
(when they resume, online_map would have changed under their feet).
> Dunno if it'll work - I only just thought of it. It sure would simplify
> things.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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