[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901081030050.22642@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:30:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * We need to validate that we can do a
> > > > + * get_cpu() and that we have the percpu area.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> > > > + goto out;
> > >
> > > Should we need to do a "get_cpu" or something? Couldn't the CPU disappear
> > > between these two calls. Or does it do a stop-machine and the preempt
> > > disable will protect us?
> >
> > Did you miss the preempt_disable() a bit up?
>
> No, let me rephrase it better. Does the preempt_disable protect against
> another CPU from going off line? Does taking a CPU off line do a
> stop_machine?
I just looked at the cpu hotplug code, and it does call stop machine. All
is in order ;-)
-- Steve
--
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