[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4898B873.6000308@qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:30:43 -0700
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@....com>
CC: mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, menage@...gle.com,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, vegard.nossum@...il.com,
lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuset: Rework sched domains and CPU hotplug handling
(2.6.27-rc1)
Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max wrote:
>> Actually it is appropriate, and there is one more user of the
>> arch_reinit_sched_domains() which is S390 topology updates.
>> Those things (mc_power and topology updates) have to update domain flags based
>> on the mc/smt power and current topology settings.
>
> Hmmm ... ok I suppose.
>
> Could we have the kernel/sched.c code, in this case, call the
> kernel/cpuset.c routine async_rebuild_sched_domains(), rather
> than the synchronous rebuild_sched_domains() call (in your naming)
> which required details of the get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus()
> wrapping to leak into kernel/sched.c:arch_reinit_sched_domains()
> routine?
It could I guess. But the questions is why ?
I mean the only reason we've introduced workqueue is because lock
nesting got too complicated. Otherwise in all those paths we're already
in a process context and there is no need to schedule a workqueue.
I see your point about get_online_cpus() thing. But it is similar to
partition_sched_domains() which is an external (from the sched pov)
interface and must be called within get_online_cpus() ... put_online_cpus().
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