On 01/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 05:22:46PM +0300, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 01/07, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > CPU_DEAD does nothing. After __cpu_disable() cwq->thread runs on
> > all CPUs and becomes idle when it flushes cwq->worklist: nobody
> ^^^
>
> all except dead cpus that is.
yes, of course.
>
> > will add work_struct on that list.
>
> 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?
But cwq->thread is not bound to the dead CPU at this point, it was aleady
migrated (like all other threads which had that CPU in ->cpus_allowed).
> 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.
I guess you misunderstood me, I meant CPU_DEAD does nothing only in
workqueue.c:workqueue_cpu_callback().
Oleg.
-
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]
