On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 10:13:44PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> If CPU_DEAD does nothing, then the dead cpu's workqueue list may be
> non-empty. How will it be flushed, given that no thread can run on the
> dead cpu?
>
> We could consider CPU_DEAD moving over work atleast (and not killing
> worker threads also). In that case, cwq->thread can flush its work,
> however it now requires serialization among worker threads, since more
> than one worker thread can now be servicing the same CPU's workqueue
> list (this will beat the very purpose of maintaining per-cpu threads to
> avoid synchronization between them).
I guess you could have cwq->thread flush only it's cpu's workqueue by
running on another cpu, which will avoid the need to synchronize
between worker threads. I am not 100% sure if that breaks workqueue
model in any way (since we could have two worker threads running on the
same CPU, but servicing different queues). Hopefully it doesnt.
However the concern expressed below remains ..
> Finally, I am concerned about the (un)friendliness of this programming
> model, where programmers are restricted in not having a stable access to
> cpu_online_map at all -and- also requiring them to code in non-obvious
> terms. Granted that writing hotplug-safe code is non-trivial, but the
> absence of "safe access to online_map" will make it more complicated.
--
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]
