[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] flush_cpu_workqueue: don't flush an empty ->worklist
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:34:17 +0530
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:54:28PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Furthermore I don't know which of these need to be tossed overboard if/when
> > we get around to using the task freezer for CPU hotplug synchronisation.
> > Hopefully, a lot of them. I don't really understand why we're continuing
> > to struggle with the existing approach before that question is settled.
> Good point!
> Fundamentally, I think we need to answer this question:
> "Do we provide *some* mechanism to block concurrent hotplug operations
> from happening? By hotplug operations I mean both changes to the bitmap
> and execution of all baclbacks in CPU_DEAD/ONLINE etc"
> If NO, then IMHO we will be forever fixing races
> If YES, then what is that mechanism? freeze_processes()? or a magical
> lock?
> freeze_processes() cant be that mechanism, if my understanding of it is
> correct - see

That's not correct. freeze_processes() will freeze *all* processes. All
of them are forced to enter refrigerator(). With the mysterious exception
of some I/O-related kernel threads, which might need some thought.

> and

Am not sure how that's related.

> I would be happy to be corrected if the above impression of
> freeze_processes() is corrected ..

It could be that the freezer needs a bit of work for this application.
Obviously we're not interested in the handling of disk I/O, so we'd really
like to do a simple
code isn't set up to do that (it should be). The other non-swsusp callers
probably want this change as well. But that's all a minor matter.
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: 2007-01-09 07:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean