On 01/07, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 10:13:44PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>
> I guess you could have cwq->thread flush only it's cpu's workqueue by
> running on another cpu,
yes, this is what I meant,
> 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.
We are already doing this on CPU_DEAD->kthread_stop().
> 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.
please see the previous message.
Srivatsa, I don't claim my idea is the best. Actually I still hope somebody
else will suggest something better and simpler :)
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]
