[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070824082121.GA16301@in.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:51:21 +0530
From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Even if we use another cpumask_t, whenever a cpu goes down or comes up,
> > that will be reflected in this map, no? So what's the additional
> > advantage of using it?
>
> The additional map allows the code to use something other than the
> lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug, and also is robust against any
> changes to the hotplug synchronization mechanism. Might well be
> better just to use the current hotplug synchronization mechanism,
> but I was feeling paranoid. ;-)
If it was doing something more complicated in the critical section other
than summing stuff up, I would probably recommend going for another map
instead of using the current hotplug synchronization. But for this case
the current hotplug synchronization would work just fine.
I can very well understand your paranoia, but let me assure you, you are
not the only one ;-)
Regards
gautham.
>
> Thanx, Paul
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
-
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