[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140213174452.GB14455@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:44:52 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>, paulus@...ba.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...nel.org,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, walken@...gle.com,
ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/51] CPU hotplug: Provide lockless versions of
callback registration functions
On 02/12, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
> On 02/11/2014 10:45 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > I am a bit confused... If we do this, why we can't simply turn
> > cpu_add_remove_lock into rw_semaphore?
[...snip...]
> cpu_notifier_register_begin(); | Run in parallel
> | with similar phases
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) | from other subsystems.
> init_cpu(cpu); |
>
> /* Updates the cpu notifier chain. */
> register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier); ||| -- Must run serially
Ah indeed, we can't use a single lock, thanks. Perhaps we can simply
add a spinlock_t which only protects cpu_chain though, but I am not
sure and currently this is off-topic anyway.
Thanks,
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