[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] [CPU-HOTPLUG] convert cpucontrol to be a rwsem
    On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 10:48 +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
    > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 13:04 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
    > > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 07:00 -0700, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
    > > > Agreed it makes a lot more sense, i think there could be some places where
    > > > we use preempt_disable to protect against cpu offline which could
    > > > converted, but that can come later.
    > > >
    > >
    > > You know I picked up Robert Love's book the other day and was surprised
    > > to read we are not supposed to be using preempt_disable, there is a
    > > per_cpu interface for exactly this kind of thing. Which is currently
    > > recommended?
    > get_cpu() both ensures that this CPU won't go down, and ensures we won't
    > get scheduled off it. It returns the current processor ID, as well.
    > put_cpu() puts the CPU back.
    > In my experience it's usually clearer than preempt_disable().

    To answer Zwane's earlier question, Love's book covers this on page 136,
    then all of Appendix B. I also completely missed this the first time...


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.033 / U:14.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site