[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100228143405.GA13236@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:34:05 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/43] stop_machine: reimplement without using workqueue
On 02/26, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> @@ -164,19 +259,18 @@ int __stop_machine(int (*fn)(void *), void *data, const struct cpumask *cpus)
> idle.fn = chill;
> idle.data = NULL;
>
> + smp_wmb(); /* -> stop_cpu()::set_current_state() */
> ...
> + for_each_online_cpu(i)
> + wake_up_process(*per_cpu_ptr(stop_machine_threads, i));
Afaics, this smp_wmb() is not needed, wake_up_process() (try_to_wake_up)
should ensure we can't race with set_current_state() + check_condition.
It does, note the wmb() in try_to_wake_up().
Oleg.
--
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