Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:51:21 +0530 | From | Gautham R Shenoy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] Priority boosting for preemptible RCU |
| |
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:26AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Even if we use another cpumask_t, whenever a cpu goes down or comes up, > > that will be reflected in this map, no? So what's the additional > > advantage of using it? > > The additional map allows the code to use something other than the > lock_cpu_hotplug/unlock_cpu_hotplug, and also is robust against any > changes to the hotplug synchronization mechanism. Might well be > better just to use the current hotplug synchronization mechanism, > but I was feeling paranoid. ;-)
If it was doing something more complicated in the critical section other than summing stuff up, I would probably recommend going for another map instead of using the current hotplug synchronization. But for this case the current hotplug synchronization would work just fine.
I can very well understand your paranoia, but let me assure you, you are not the only one ;-)
Regards gautham. > > Thanx, Paul
-- Gautham R Shenoy Linux Technology Center IBM India. "Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain, because Freedom is priceless!" - 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/
| |