[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070107171826.GB238@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:18:26 +0300
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
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] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
On 01/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > CPU_DEAD does nothing. After __cpu_disable() cwq->thread runs on
> > all CPUs and becomes idle when it flushes cwq->worklist: nobody
> ^^^
>
> all except dead cpus that is.
yes, of course.
>
> > will add work_struct on that list.
>
> If CPU_DEAD does nothing, then the dead cpu's workqueue list may be
> non-empty. How will it be flushed, given that no thread can run on the
> dead cpu?
But cwq->thread is not bound to the dead CPU at this point, it was aleady
migrated (like all other threads which had that CPU in ->cpus_allowed).
> Finally, I am concerned about the (un)friendliness of this programming
> model, where programmers are restricted in not having a stable access to
> cpu_online_map at all -and- also requiring them to code in non-obvious
> terms. Granted that writing hotplug-safe code is non-trivial, but the
> absence of "safe access to online_map" will make it more complicated.
I guess you misunderstood me, I meant CPU_DEAD does nothing only in
workqueue.c:workqueue_cpu_callback().
Oleg.
-
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