[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 ;-)

> 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-24 10:29    [W:0.055 / U:2.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site