[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109011106.GD31263@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 06:41:06 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Cc: "Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...sign.ru>, "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 Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:37:25AM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> One other approach I was thinking about, was to do all the hardwork in
> workqueue CPU_DOWN_PREPARE callback rather than in CPU_DEAD.
Between DOWN_PREPARE and DEAD, more work can get added to the cpu's
workqueue. So DOWN_PREPARE is kind of early to take_over_work ..
> We can call cleanup_workqueue_thread and take_over_work in DOWN_PREPARE,
> With that, I don't think we need to hold the workqueue_mutex across
> these two callbacks and eliminate the deadlocks related to
> flush_workqueue.
> Do you think this approach would simply things around here?
--
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