[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070107110013.GD13579@in.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:30:13 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
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, Jan 06, 2007 at 11:11:17AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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?
How would this provide a stable access to cpu_online_map in functions
that need to block while accessing it (as flush_workqueue requires)?
--
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