On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > @@ -510,13 +515,11 @@ int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(vo
> > > if (!works)
> > > return -ENOMEM;
> > >
> > > - mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > > for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > INIT_WORK(per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu), func, info);
> > > __queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu),
> > > per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu));
> > > }
> > > - mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > > flush_workqueue(keventd_wq);
> > > free_percpu(works);
> > > return 0;
> >
> > Removing this lock without adding a lock/unlock_cpu_hotplug seems wrong,
> > since this function is walking the cpu_online_map.
>
> As long as you disable preemption and don't block the critical
> section should be safe from cpu hotplug. There is no need to
> lock/unlock cpu hotplug.
What disables preemption here?
Ah.. you probably meant preempt_disable/enable instead of lock/unlock cpu
hotplug would be sufficient. True.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
