[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EF03B48.6000006@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:07:44 +0530
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: mc@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
CC: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, david@...morbit.com,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than
online CPUs
On 12/20/2011 01:00 PM, mengcong wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 06:27 +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:26:05AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>> Oh, right, that has to be handled as well...
>>>
>>> Hmmm... How about registering a CPU hotplug notifier callback during lock init
>>> time, and then for every cpu that gets onlined (after we took a copy of the
>>> cpu_online_mask to work with), we see if that cpu is different from the ones
>>> we have already locked, and if it is, we lock it in the callback handler and
>>> update the locked_cpu_mask appropriately (so that we release the locks properly
>>> during the unlock operation).
>>>
>>> Handling the newly introduced race between the callback handler and lock-unlock
>>> code must not be difficult, I believe..
>>>
>>> Any loopholes in this approach? Or is the additional complexity just not worth
>>> it here?
>>
>> To summarize the modified variant of that approach hashed out on IRC:
>>
> On which IRC do you discuss?
#kernel on tinc.sekrit.org :-)
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
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