On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:26:52 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > + if (cpu != -1)
> > > > + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex);
> > >
> > > events/4 thread itself wanting the same mutex above?
> >
> > Could do, not sure. I'm planning on converting all the locking around
> > here to preempt_disable() though.
>
> please at least use an owner-recursive per-CPU lock,
a wot?
> not a naked
> preempt_disable()! The concurrency rules for data structures changed via
> preempt_disable() are quite hard to sort out after the fact.
> (preempt_disable() is too opaque,
preempt_disable() is the preferred way of holding off cpu hotplug.
> it doesnt attach data structure to
> critical section, like normal locks do.)
the data structure is the CPU, and its per-cpu data. And cpu_online_map.
-
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]
