Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] Revert Changes to kernel/workqueue.c

[Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 04:33:06PM +0530, Dipankar Sarma wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:51:00PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > @@ -510,13 +515,11 @@ int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(vo
> > >  	if (!works)
> > >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > >  
> > > -	mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > >  	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > >  		INIT_WORK(per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu), func, info);
> > >  		__queue_work(per_cpu_ptr(keventd_wq->cpu_wq, cpu),
> > >  				per_cpu_ptr(works, cpu));
> > >  	}
> > > -	mutex_unlock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > >  	flush_workqueue(keventd_wq);
> > >  	free_percpu(works);
> > >  	return 0;
> > 
> > Removing this lock without adding a lock/unlock_cpu_hotplug seems wrong,
> > since this function is walking the cpu_online_map.
> 
> As long as you disable preemption and don't block the critical
> section should be safe from cpu hotplug. There is no need to 
> lock/unlock cpu hotplug.

What disables preemption here?
Ah.. you probably meant preempt_disable/enable instead of lock/unlock cpu
hotplug would be sufficient. True.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/