Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:21:10 +0200 | From | "Dmitry Adamushko" <> | Subject | Re: current linux-2.6.git: cpusets completely broken |
| |
2008/7/15 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>: > > > On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> The 'synchronization' point occurs even earlier - when cpu_down() -> >> __stop_machine_run() gets called (as I described in my previous mail). >> >> My point was that if it's ok to have a _delayed_ synchronization >> point, having it not immediately after cpu_clear(cpu, cpu_active_map) >> but when the "runqueue lock" is taken a bit later (as you pointed out >> above) or __stop_machine_run() gets executed (which is a sync point, >> scheduling-wise), >> >> then we can implement the proper synchronization (hotplugging vs. >> task-migration) with cpu_online_map (no need for cpu_active_map). > > [ ... ] > > In particular, it should tell you that the code is too hard to follow, and > too fragile, and a total mess. > > I do NOT understand why you seem to argue for being "subtle" and "clever", > considering the history of this whole setup. Subtle and clever and complex > is what got us to the crap situation.
Fair enough, agreed.
> > Linus >
-- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko
| |