[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070102162727.9ce2ae2b.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:27:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] fix flush_workqueue() vs CPU_DEAD race
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:10:31 +0300
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
> "[PATCH 1/2] reimplement flush_workqueue()" fixed one race when CPU goes down
> while flush_cpu_workqueue() plays with it. But there is another problem, CPU
> can die before flush_workqueue() has a chance to call flush_cpu_workqueue().
> In that case pending work_structs can migrate to CPU which was already checked,
> so we should redo the "for_each_online_cpu(cpu)" loop.
>
I have a mental note that these:
extend-notifier_call_chain-to-count-nr_calls-made.patch
extend-notifier_call_chain-to-count-nr_calls-made-fixes.patch
extend-notifier_call_chain-to-count-nr_calls-made-fixes-2.patch
define-and-use-new-eventscpu_lock_acquire-and-cpu_lock_release.patch
define-and-use-new-eventscpu_lock_acquire-and-cpu_lock_release-fix.patch
eliminate-lock_cpu_hotplug-in-kernel-schedc.patch
eliminate-lock_cpu_hotplug-in-kernel-schedc-fix.patch
handle-cpu_lock_acquire-and-cpu_lock_release-in-workqueue_cpu_callback.patch
should be scrapped. But really I forget what their status is. Gautham,
can you please remind us where we're 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