[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070106111117.54bb2307.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:11:17 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
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] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:08:51 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com> wrote:
> This workqueue problem has exposed a classic example of how
> tough/miserable it can be to write hotplug safe code w/o something like
> lock_cpu_hotplug() ..Are you still inclined towards banning it? :)
I don't ban stuff - I just advocate ;)
I would still prefer that we not try to invent a new magical lock,
but yes, the current approach is looking troublesome.
> FYI, the lock_cpu_hotplug() rewrite proposed by Gautham at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65 may still need refinement to avoid
> all the kind of deadlocks we have unearthed with workqueue example. I
> can review that design with Gautham if there is some interest to
> revive lock_cpu_hotplug() ..
Has anyone thought seriously about using the process freezer in the
cpu-down/cpu-up paths? That way we don't need to lock anything anywhere?
-
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