[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070109050417.GC589@in.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:34:17 +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] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:54:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Furthermore I don't know which of these need to be tossed overboard if/when
> we get around to using the task freezer for CPU hotplug synchronisation.
> Hopefully, a lot of them. I don't really understand why we're continuing
> to struggle with the existing approach before that question is settled.
Good point!
Fundamentally, I think we need to answer this question:
"Do we provide *some* mechanism to block concurrent hotplug operations
from happening? By hotplug operations I mean both changes to the bitmap
and execution of all baclbacks in CPU_DEAD/ONLINE etc"
If NO, then IMHO we will be forever fixing races
If YES, then what is that mechanism? freeze_processes()? or a magical
lock?
freeze_processes() cant be that mechanism, if my understanding of it is
correct - see http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/8/149 and
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116817460726058.
I would be happy to be corrected if the above impression of
freeze_processes() is corrected ..
--
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