[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AE90C24D6B3A694183C094C60CF0A2F6026B72AA@saturn3.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:29:40 +0100
From: "David Laight" <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: <peterz@...radead.org>, <fweisbec@...il.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <walken@...gle.com>,
<mingo@...nel.org>, <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <namhyung@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<laijs@...fujitsu.com>, <zhong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <oleg@...hat.com>, <sbw@....edu>,
<tj@...nel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 15/45] rcu: Use get/put_online_cpus_atomic() to prevent CPU offline
> Once stop_machine() is gone from the CPU offline path, we won't be able
> to depend on disabling preemption to prevent CPUs from going offline
> from under us.
Could you use an rcu-like sequence so that disabling pre-emption
would be enough?
Something like rebuilding the cpu list, then forcing yourself
to run on all the cpu.
That would be far less intrusive.
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists