[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121207181608.GB2821@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:16:08 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
mingo@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, oleg@...hat.com, sbw@....edu,
amit.kucheria@...aro.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, rjw@...k.pl,
wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 1/9] CPU hotplug: Provide APIs to prevent CPU
offline from atomic context
Hello, again.
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 09:57:24AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> possible. Also, I think the right approach would be auditing each
> get_online_cpus_atomic() callsites and figure out proper locking order
> rather than implementing a construct this unusual especially as
> hunting down the incorrect cases shouldn't be difficult given proper
> lockdep annotation.
On the second look, it looks like you're implementing proper
percpu_rwlock semantics as readers aren't supposed to induce circular
dependency directly. Can you please work with Oleg to implement
proper percpu-rwlock and use that for CPU hotplug rather than
implementing it inside CPU hotplug?
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