On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 11:11:17AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Has anyone thought seriously about using the process freezer in the > cpu-down/cpu-up paths? That way we don't need to lock anything anywhere? How would this provide a stable access to cpu_online_map in functions that need to block while accessing it (as flush_workqueue requires)? -- 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- References:
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH, RFC] reimplement flush_workqueue()
- Prev by Date: Re: Linux 2.6.20-rc4
- Next by Date: Re: [DISCUSS] Making system calls more portable.
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update
- Index(es):
 |