On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:30:13 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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)?
If a thread simply blocks, that will not permit a cpu plug/unplug to proceed.
The thread had to explicitly call try_to_freeze(). CPU plug/unplug will
not occur (and cpu_online_map will not change) until every process in the
machine has called try_to_freeze()).
So the problem which you're referring to will only occur if a workqueue
callback function calls try_to_freeze(), which would be mad.
Plus flush_workqueue() is on the way out. We're slowly edging towards a
working cancel_work() which will only block if the work which you're trying
to cancel is presently running. With that, pretty much all the
flush_workqueue() calls go away, and all these accidental rarely-occurring
deadlocks go away too.
-
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]
