[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184442589.5284.84.camel@lappy>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:49:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt 5/5] slub: -rt port
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 23:38 +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Yeah, the function I copied this from: schedule_on_each_cpu() has a
> > comment to that effect.
>
> Just in case, schedule_on_each_cpu() ptotects cpu_online_map with
> preempt_disable(), its problem is quite different.
I was schedule_on_each_cpu_wq() I copied, and that does not disable
preemption. Also, I'm failing to see how schedule_on_each_cpu() could
work with -rt, since __queue_work() takes a regular spinlock.
> > Any ideas on how to solve this?
>
> Perhaps slab_cpuup_callback() can take flush_slab_mutex too, in that
> case cpu_online_map will be stable under flush_slab_mutex.
Right, I'll give that a try.
-
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