Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:41:16 +0530
Dipankar Sarma <[email protected]> wrote:
Is this too difficult for people to follow ?
Apparently. What's happening is that lock_cpu_hotplug() is seen as some
amazing thing which will prevent an *event* from occurring.
It prevents the event from occurring as much as a lock taken in the
prepare notifier does, right? Or am I misunderstanding something?
There's an old saying "lock data, not code". What data is being locked
here? It's the subsystem's per-cpu resources which we want to lock. We
shouldn't consider the lock as being some way of preventing an event from
happening.
I agree. Where possible these things should be very simple either with
the per-cpu macros, or using local locking (versus one's notifier).
I think there can be some valid use of the hotplug lock when working
with cpumasks rather than individual CPUs (or if you simply want to
prevent a cpu from going down while programming hardware) and having a
new lock and new notifier is too heavyweight. Or do we want to move
away from the hotplug lock completely?
Hmm, so I don't know if I like the idea of a reentrant rwmutex for the
hotplug lock so it can be sprinkled everywhere... call it a refcount
or not it smells slightly BKLish (looks easy but it could be a
nightmare to audit).
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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]
