[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100301165038.GA14558@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:50:38 +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 03/02, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 03/02/2010 12:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Suppose that, when stop_machine_cpu_callback(CPU_POST_DEAD) is called,
> > that stop_cpu() thread T is still running and it is going to check state
> > before schedule().
>
> Oh, I see. I was thinking get/put_online_cpus() block is exclusive
> against cpu_maps_update_begin/done() instead of
> cpu_hotplug_begin/done(). Will update and add comments.
Agreed, a little comment can help.
But, just in case, I forgot to repeat this case is not possible anyway.
_cpu_down() ensures idle_cpu(cpu) == T after __stop_machine(), this means
that this SCHED_FIFO thread we are going to kthread_stop() later can't
be active.
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