[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090608142520.GA6961@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 07:25:20 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuhotplug: introduce try_get_online_cpus() take 2
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:49:34AM +0530, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 08:37:14AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > One question for Gautham Shenoy -- are non-atomic CPU-hotplug notifiers
> > always invoked from the task that did the cpu_hotplug_begin()?
>
> Except for the notifiers handling two events, rest of the notifiers
> are always invoked from the task that did the cpu_hotplug_begin().
>
> The two events are CPU_DYING which is called from the context of the
> stop_machine_thread and CPU_STARTING which is called from the context of
> the idle thread on the CPU that has just come up. The notifiers handling
> these two events are expected to be atomic.
>
> > If so, well and good. If not, then it would not be possible to
> > expedite RCU grace periods from within CPU-hotplug notifiers.
>
> I hope this would be good enough :-)
Works for me!! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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