[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47BF38D5.7090604@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:04:21 -0800
From: Max Krasnyanskiy <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.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
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> 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'? :-)
My bad. I forgot to update that text. As you and other folks pointed out
stopmachine is used in a few other places besides module loading. We had
a discussion about this awhile ago. I just forgot to update the text.
Will do.
Max
--
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