[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131014090508.GW3081@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:05:08 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Optimize the cpu hotplug locking -v2
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 07:06:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> it even disables irqs, so this should always imply rcu_read_lock() with
> any implementation,
Not so; I could make an RCU implementation that drives the state machine
from rcu_read_unlock(). Such an implementation doesn't need the
interrupt driven poll-state driver we currently have and could thus
subvert that assumption :-)
Then again, there's a good reason PaulMck didn't pick this
implementation.
> In fact I do not even understand why getaffinity() doesn't simply
> return ->cpus_allowed, but this is off-topic.
Yeah, me neither :-(, it always surprises me. But changing it is likely
to break stuff so there we are.
--
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