[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:0.020 / U:165.828 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site