[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B8BD934.4050908@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:11:48 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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
Hello, again.
On 02/28/2010 11:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 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().
Yeap, the initial version was like that and it was awkward to explain
in the comment in stop_cpu() so I basically put it there as a
documentation anchor. Do you think removing it would be better?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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