[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B958673.3000105@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:21:23 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
sivanich@....com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu, peterz@...radead.org,
dipankar@...ibm.com, josh@...edesktop.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oleg@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] stop_machine: reimplement using cpuhog
Hello,
On 03/09/2010 01:32 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 00:53:21 +0900
> Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>> Reimplement stop_machine using cpuhog. As cpuhogs are guaranteed to
>> be available for all online cpus, stop_machine_create/destroy() are no
>> longer necessary and removed.
>
> question;
> stop_machine pretty much also stops interrupts (it has to, at least for
> the users of stop_machine).. do cpu_hogs do this too?
>
> (if they don't, cpu_hogs aren't safe for some of the users of
> stop_machine, like code patching etc)
That is and has always been done by stop_machine cpuhog callback
stop_cpu(). Only the thread pool is changed. The logic stays the
same.
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