[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150623172416.GA27505@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 19:24:16 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tj@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, der.herr@...r.at, dave@...olabs.net,
riel@...hat.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 12/13] stop_machine: Remove lglock
On 06/23, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
>
> It would be nice to remove stop_cpus_mutex, it actually protects
> stop_cpus_work... Then probably stop_two_cpus() can just use
> stop_cpus(). We could simply make stop_cpus_mutex per-cpu too,
> but this doesn't look nice.
IOW. Suppose we add ->work_mutex into struct cpu_stopper. Btw,
I think we should move all per-cpu variables there...
Now,
lock_stop_cpus_works(cpumask)
{
for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask)
mutex_lock(per_cpu(cpu_stopper_task, cpu).work_mutex);
}
unlock_stop_cpus_works(cpumask)
{
for_each_cpu(cpu, cpumask)
mutex_lock(...);
}
which should be used instead of stop_cpus_mutex. After this change
stop_two_cpus() can just use stop_cpus().
Off-topic. Can't we make __stop_machine() static? The only caller,
_cpu_down() can safely call stop_machine(), get_online_cpus() is
fine under cpu_hotplug_begin().
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