[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070104043046.GA15162@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:00:46 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dipankar@...ibm.com, vatsa@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/2] fix flush_workqueue() vs CPU_DEAD race
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:26:57PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I thought that these patches don't depend on each other, flush_work/workueue
> don't care where cpu-hotplug takes workqueue_mutex, in CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE or in
> CPU_UP_PREPARE case (or CPU_DEAD/CPU_LOCK_RELEASE for unlock).
>
> Could you clarify? Just curious.
You are right. They don't depend on each other.
The intention behind introducing CPU_LOCK_ACQUIRE and CPU_LOCK_RELEASE
was to have a standard place where the subsystems could acquire/release
the "cpu hotplug protection" mutex in the cpu_hotplug callback function.
The same can be acheived by acquiring these mutexes in
CPU_UP_PREPARE/CPU_DOWN_PREPARE etc.
This is true for every subsystem that is cpu-hotplug aware.
> Oleg.
>
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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