[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120326170443.GA25229@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:04:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 01/10] cpu: Introduce clear_tasks_mm_cpumask()
helper
On 03/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 19:42 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > __cpu_disable() is called by __stop_machine(), we know that nobody
> > can preempt us and other CPUs can do nothing.
>
> It would be very good to not rely on that though,
Yes, yes, perhaps I wasn't clear but I think the patches are fine.
> I would love to get
> rid of the stop_machine usage in cpu hotplug some day.
Interesting... Why? I mean, why do you dislike stop_machine() in
_cpu_down() ? Just curious.
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