[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130626143424.GN3828@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:34:24 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
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
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 03:29:40PM +0100, David Laight wrote:
> > 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.
It would also increase the latency of CPU-hotunplug operations.
Thanx, Paul
--
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