[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1282823139.1975.689.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:45:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lglock: make lg_lock_global() actually lock globally
On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 21:38 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I think for CPU plug, stop_machine is reasonable (especially
> considering it is required in unload, which means any frequent
> amount of cpu plug activity already will require stop_machine to
> run anyway).
How is it required?
Its currently implemented as such, and its sure a lot easier to do that
way, but I could imagine that unplugging a CPU could be done without it.
--
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