[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <497E40C4.4@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:01:24 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, rusty@...tcorp.com.au, mingo@...hat.com,
davej@...hat.com, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] work_on_cpu: Use our own workqueue.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> But "[PATCH 1/3] work_on_cpu: dont try to get_online_cpus() in
>> work_on_cpu." removes get_online_cpus/put_online_cpus, this means the
>> work can run on the wrong CPU anyway. Or work_on_cpu() can hang forever
>> if CPU has already gone away before queue_work_on().
>>
>> Confused.
>
> The idea was to require work_on_cpu() users to be CPU hotplug-safe. But
> ... Rusty pointed it out in the past that this might be fragile, and we
> could put back the get_online_cpus()/put_online_cpus() calls.
>
> Rusty, what do you think?
>
> Ingo
I believe that is the intention, in that the caller should insure that
the cpu does not go offline. But also as Rusty stated, the previous usages
of set_cpus_allowed did not always insure this, so it's at least not a
regression.
I'll put it on my todo list to check the references in tip/cpus4096 to see
where they stand on the get_online_cpus() issue.
Thanks,
Mike
--
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