[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070824172759.GC8589@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:27:59 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...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 Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 01:51:21PM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> 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 ;-)
OK, will try to keep an open mind... ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
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