[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b647ffbd0802220036v383961ddq5f07efe72f525ffc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:36:28 +0100
From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
To: "Max Krasnyanskiy" <maxk@...lcomm.com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@....com>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH sched-devel 0/7] CPU isolation extensions
Hi Max,
> [ ... ]
> Last patch to the stop machine is potentially unsafe and is marked as experimental. Unfortunately
> it's currently the only option that allows dynamic module insertion/removal for above scenarios.
I'm puzzled by the following part (can be a misunderstanding from my side)
+config CPUISOL_STOPMACHINE
+ bool "Do not halt isolated CPUs with Stop Machine (EXPERIMENTAL)"
+ depends on CPUISOL && STOP_MACHINE && EXPERIMENTAL
+ help
+ If this option is enabled kernel will not halt isolated CPUs
+ when Stop Machine is triggered. Stop Machine is currently only
+ used by the module insertion and removal.
this "only" part. What about e.g. a 'cpu hotplug' case (_cpu_down())?
(or we should abstract it a bit to the point that e.g. a cpu can be
considered as 'a module'? :-)
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
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