[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263890222.4283.634.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 09:37:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, awalls@...ix.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, avi@...hat.com,
johannes@...solutions.net, andi@...stfloor.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/40] sched: implement __set_cpus_allowed()
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:07 +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> It's also necessary to guarantee forward progress during CPU_DOWN.
> The problem with kthread_bind() is that it's not synchronized against
> CPU hotplug operations. It needs outer synchronization like calling
> it directly from CPU_DOWN_PREP. I guess it's doable but I think it
> would be better to simply share the backend implementation between
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() and kthread_bind().
OK, so you're saying you need to migrate the rescue thread during
cpu-down. That thread is guaranteed sleeping right, if it were not it'd
not be elegible to run on our dying cpu. Hence kthread_bind() ought to
just work, no?
--
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