Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 May 2005 19:58:51 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] cpusets+hotplug+preepmt broken |
| |
Dipankar, replying to pj: > > What part of what I wrote are you saying "No" to? > > The question right above "No" :)
Well ... that was less than obvious. You quoted too much, and responded with information about other semaphores, not about why other duties of _this_ semaphore made such a rename wrong.
Fortunately, Nathan clarified matters.
So how would you, or Srivatsa or Nathan, respond to my more substantive point, to repeat:
Srivatsa, replying to Dinakar: > This in fact was the reason that we added lock_cpu_hotplug > in sched_setaffinity.
Why just in sched_setaffinity()? What about the other 60+ calls to set_cpus_allowed(). Shouldn't most of those calls be checking that the passed in cpus are online (holding lock_cpu_hotplug while doing all this)? Either that, or at least handling the error from set_cpus_allowed() if the requested cpus end up not being online? I see only 2 set_cpus_allowed() calls that make any pretense of examining the return value.
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@engr.sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373, 1.925.600.0401 - 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/
| |