[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070106152413.GB24274@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:54:14 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Gautham shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 05:07:17PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> How about block_cpu_down() ?
Maybe ..not sure
If we do introduce such a function, we may need to convert several
preempt_disable() that are there already (with intent of blocking
cpu_down) to block_cpu_down() ..
> These cpu-hotplug races delayed the last workqueue patch I have in my queue.
> flush_workqueue() misses an important optimization: we don't need to insert
> a barrier and have an extra wake_up + wait_for_completion when cwq has no
> pending works. But we need ->current_work (introduced in the next patch) to
> implement this correctly.
>
> I'll re-send the patch below later, when we finish with the bug you pointed
> out, but it would be nice if you can take a look now.
The patch seems fine to me, though I dont see any cpu hotplug
related problem being exposed/solved in this patch.
--
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