[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070107173334.GC238@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 20:33:34 +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 10:13:44PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> I guess you could have cwq->thread flush only it's cpu's workqueue by
> running on another cpu,
yes, this is what I meant,
> which will avoid the need to synchronize
> between worker threads. I am not 100% sure if that breaks workqueue
> model in any way (since we could have two worker threads running on the
> same CPU, but servicing different queues). Hopefully it doesnt.
We are already doing this on CPU_DEAD->kthread_stop().
> However the concern expressed below remains ..
>
> > 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.
please see the previous message.
Srivatsa, I don't claim my idea is the best. Actually I still hope somebody
else will suggest something better and simpler :)
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