[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807091211.39457.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:11:38 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] stop_machine: simplify
On Wednesday 09 July 2008 00:27:03 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hi Rusty,
>
> * Rusty Russell (rusty@...tcorp.com.au) wrote:
> > stop_machine creates a kthread which creates kernel threads. We can
> > create those threads directly and simplify things a little. Some care
> > must be taken with CPU hotunplug, which has special needs, but that code
> > seems more robust than it was in the past.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> > ---
> > include/linux/stop_machine.h | 12 -
> > kernel/cpu.c | 13 -
> > kernel/stop_machine.c | 299
> > ++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 3 files changed, 135
> > insertions(+), 189 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/stop_machine.h b/include/linux/stop_machine.h
> > --- a/include/linux/stop_machine.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/stop_machine.h
> > @@ -17,13 +17,12 @@
> > * @data: the data ptr for the @fn()
> > * @cpu: if @cpu == n, run @fn() on cpu n
> > * if @cpu == NR_CPUS, run @fn() on any cpu
> > - * if @cpu == ALL_CPUS, run @fn() first on the calling cpu, and
> > then - * concurrently on all the other cpus
> > + * if @cpu == ALL_CPUS, run @fn() on every online CPU.
> > *
>
> I agree with this change if it makes things simpler. However, callers
> must be aware of this important change :
>
> "run @fn() first on the calling cpu, and then concurrently on all the
> other cpus" becomes "run @fn() on every online CPU".
OK. Since that was never in mainline, I think you're the only one who needs
to be aware of the semantic change?
The new symmetric implementation breaks it; hope that isn't a showstopper for
you?
> There were assumptions done in @fn() where a simple non atomic increment
> was used on a static variable to detect that it was the first thread to
> execute. It will have to be changed into an atomic inc/dec and test.
> Given that the other threads have tasks to perform _after_ the first
> thread has executed, they will have to busy-wait (spin) there waiting
> for the first thread to finish its execution.
I assume you can't do that step then call stop_machine.
Thanks,
Rusty.
--
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