Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 6 Jan 2007 20:13:21 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fix-flush_workqueue-vs-cpu_dead-race-update |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> > FYI, the lock_cpu_hotplug() rewrite proposed by Gautham at > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/10/26/65 may still need refinement to > > avoid all the kind of deadlocks we have unearthed with workqueue > > example. I can review that design with Gautham if there is some > > interest to revive lock_cpu_hotplug() .. > > Has anyone thought seriously about using the process freezer in the > cpu-down/cpu-up paths? That way we don't need to lock anything > anywhere?
yes, yes, yes - lets please do that! The process freezer is already used for suspend, for hibernate and recently for kprobes - so its performance and robustness is being relied on and verified from multiple angles. I can see no reason why it couldnt be made really fast even on large boxes, if the need arises. (but even the current one is fast enough for any human-driven CPU hotplug stuff)
Ingo - 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/
| |