[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200901271745.19574.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:45:18 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, travis@....com, 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.
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 08:47:29 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.
Old code used to do:
tmp = current->cpus_allowed;
set_cpus_allowed(current, cpumask_of_cpu(cpu));
function(arg);
set_cpus_allowed(current, tmp);
We replaced it with:
work_on_cpu(cpu, function, arg);
I thought I'd be clever and reliably check that the cpu they asked for
was online inside work_on_cpu. Leading to locking problems. But if they
didn't previously ensure cpu hotplug didn't happen, they were buggy already,
so I took out the check and hence the hotplug lock.
So we're no *worse* than we were before, but yes, an audit would probably
lead to fixes.
Hope that clarifies?
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