[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091007135049.GF6838@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 06:50:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 2/3] rcu: make hot-unplugged CPU
relinquish its own RCU callbacks
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:16:12AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Still suffering jetlag? ;-)
As a matter of fact, yes. ;-)
> On Tue, 2009-10-06 at 21:48 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > From: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > The current interaction between RCU and CPU hotplug requires that
> > RCU block in CPU notifiers waiting for callbacks to drain. This can
> > be greatly simplified by haing each CPU relinquish its own callbacks,
> having
>
> > and for both _rcu_barrier() and CPU_DEAD notifiers to adopt all callbacks
> > that were previously relinquished. This change also eliminates the
> > possibility of certain types of hangs due to the previous practice of
> > waiting for callbacks to be invoked from within CPU notifiers. If you
> > don't every wait, you cannot hang.
> ever
>
> ;-)
Courtesy of "git cherry-pick" and my being out of it. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> -- 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