Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c

On 10/24, Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:38:18PM +0400, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > 
> > So, can't we introduce 2 nested rw locks? The first one blocks cpu hotplug
> > (like get_online_cpus does currently), the second one just pins cpu maps.
> > I think most users needs only this, not more.
> > 
> 
> Well, rw locks/sems cannot recurse. However, refcount model supports
> recursion naturally. Hence the implementation.

No, no, you misunderstood! (I was unclear). I meant, can't we introduce 2
refcounted nested locks? Both implemented as get_online_cpus/cpu_hotplug_begin.

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/

References:
- [RFC PATCH 0/5] Refcount based Cpu Hotplug. V2
  - From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c
  - From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c
  - From: Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c
  - From: Gautham R Shenoy <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [BUG] 2.6.23-git18 Kernel oops in sg helpers
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/5] NET: Make ts_recent_stamp unsigned
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/5] Remove CPU_DEAD/CPU_UP_CANCELLED handling from workqueue.c
Next by thread: [RFC PATCH 5/5] Update get_online_cpus() in Documentation/cpu-hotplug.c
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]