Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>
> > > There are many other for_each_*_cpu loops in the kernel that do not have
> > > any of the instrumentation you suggest. I suggest you come up with a
> > > general solution and then go through all of them and fix this. Please be
> > > aware that many of these loops are performance critical.
> >
> > But this one isn't, right?
>
> Right. One could use more expensive processing here.
Hopefully none of the for_each_foo() loops are performance-critical - those
things are expensive.
> > And I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding here -- only
> > for_each_online_cpu (or accessing the cpu online map in general) has
> > such restrictions -- for_each_possible_cpu doesn't require any locking
> > or preempt tricks since cpu_possible_map must not change after boot.
for_each_present_cpu() presumably has the same problems.
> Correct. We may want to audit the kernel and check that each
> for_each_possible_cpu or for_each_cpu is really correct.
A fair bit of that has been happening in recent weeks.
But yes, we should be protecting these things with rcu_read_lock() if
possible, lock_cpu_hotplug() otherwise.
(rcu_read_lock() might not be the appropriate name for this operation -
maybe it should be an open-coded preempt_disable(). Or some other suitably
named alias; dunno).
-
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]
