On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:42:46PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> preempt_disable() can't prevent cpu_up, but flush_workqueue() doesn't care
> _unless_ cpu_down also happened meantime (and hence a fresh CPU may have
> pending work_structs which were moved from a dead CPU).
Yes, that was what I had in mind.
> So you are right, we still need the patch above, but I think we don't have
> new problems with preempt_disable().
Right, preempt_disable() hasn't added any new problem. Its just
revealing the same problem as earlier, by opening up window for cpu
hotplug events to happen in the middle of flush_workqueue().
Ideally I would have liked a lock_cpu_hotplug() equivalent which blocks
all cpu hotplug events during the entire flush_workqueue(). In its
absence, I guess we just need to deal with all these ugly races ..
In summary, I think we need to go ahead with the preemp_disable() patch
in flush_workqueue() from Andrew and the race fix you posted here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/30/37
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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]
